Project on Enhancing Legal Discourse:

A Comprehensive Analysis of Evidence in Section 27

THE LAW OF EVIDENCE................................................................................................................................4

ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS................................................................................................................5
SECTION 27..................................................................................................................................................6
RATIONALE BEHIND SECTION 27.................................................................................................................6
DOCTRINE OF CONFIRMATION BY SUBSEQUENT FACTS..............................................................................7
ESSENTIALS OF SECTION 27.........................................................................................................................7
The person giving the information must be accused of any offence.......................................................8
He must be in custody of a police officer.................................................................................................8
The fact of which evidence is sought to be given must be relevant to the issue.....................................9
Articles concealed in public place..........................................................................................................10
Information by two or more accused....................................................................................................10
EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF DISCOVERY UNDER SECTION 27.........................................................................11
DEOMAN UPADHYAY V. STATE OF UP: CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF SECTION 27 CHALLENGED..........11
Facts of the case....................................................................................................................................11
Challenge to section 27, Evidence Act...................................................................................................12
Decisions of the High Court and the Supreme Court; the concept of DEEMED CUSTODY.....................12
SOME OTHER LANDMARK CASE LAWS......................................................................................................13
Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar..........................................................................................................13
State of Bombay v Kathi Kalu Oghad.....................................................................................................13
State (NCT) of Delhi v Navjot Sandhu....................................................................................................14
Mohd. Aslam v. State of Maharashtra...................................................................................................14
CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................................................14
BIBLIOGRAPHY...........................................................................................................................................16

Page 1 of 16
 Project on Enhancing Legal Discourse:
A Comprehensive Analysis of Evidence in Section 27

Page 2 of 16
 Project on Enhancing Legal Discourse:
A Comprehensive Analysis of Evidence in Section 27

THE LAW OF EVIDENCE

The term “law” is used in various ways. In its most basic sense, it refers to any rule, law, norm,
doctrine, or standard to which human beings must adhere. The entire corpus juris (body of laws)
is divided into two broad categories:

 Substantive laws,

 Adjective laws.

The law of evidence does not fall under substantive or procedural law, but rather under the
‘adjective law,’ which describes the pleading and method by which substantive laws are put into
operation.

The term evidence was derived from the Latin word ‘Evidera,’ which means lucidity, clarity in
presentation, and the ability to prove the facts in question. In the words of Sir William
Blackstone, evidence “Signifies that which demonstrates, makes clear or ascertains the truth of
the facts or points in issue.” Sir Taylor describes evidence as “all means which tend to prove or
disprove any matter, fact, the truth of which is submitted to judicial investigation.”

According to Stephen, “It sometimes means words uttered and things exhibited by witnesses
before a Court of Justice. At other times, it means the facts proved to exist by those words or
things and regarded as grand work of inference as to other facts not so proved. Again, it is
sometimes used as meaning to assert that a particular fact is relevant to the matter under
inquiry.”

Thus, evidence is defined as anything that tends to verify or deny the existence or nonexistence
of a stated fact. The party who claims the presence of a fact must prove its existence, whereas the
party who denies it must disprove its existence or establish its non-existence.

As per Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

‘Evidence’ means and includes the following:

Page 3 of 16
 Project on Enhancing Legal Discourse:
A Comprehensive Analysis of Evidence in Section 27

1. All statements made before the Court by witnesses about matters of fact under
investigation, which the Court permits or requires; such statements are referred to as oral
evidence;

2. All documents (including electronic records) presented for the inspection of the Court;
such materials are referred to as documentary evidence.

ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Section 17-31 deal with the provisions related to admission and
confessions and their relevancy. The term “confession” is not explicitly defined in the Indian
Evidence Act. However, confessions fall under the broader category of “admission” defined in
Section 17 of the Act. Therefore, the definition of admission provided in Section 17 also applies
to confessions.

Admissions in Evidence Act refer to relevant statements made in civil cases, while confessions
specifically pertain to acknowledgements of guilt or substantial admissions of facts in criminal
cases.

Admission, as per section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act, encompasses statements that can be
oral, documentary or in electronic form. These statements imply an inference regarding a fact in
question or a relevant fact and are made by individuals under specific circumstances outlined
later in the Act.

The definition clarifies that evidence can take different forms, and its admissibility is contingent
upon satisfying the conditions outlined in sections 18 to 23 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Interestingly, colloquially, the term ‘confession’ is often used to denote adverse statements made
by a competent party, but it falls within the scope of admission.

Sections 24-27 of the act deal with admissibility of the confessions made to police officers
during a court proceeding. Section 25 bars the confessions made to a police officer to be used in
a criminal proceeding. Section 27 acts as an exception to this rule.

Page 4 of 16
 Project on Enhancing Legal Discourse:
A Comprehensive Analysis of Evidence in Section 27

SECTION 27

Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as “Provided that, when any fact is deposed to
as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in
the custody of a police-officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession
or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.”

This Section lays down that if the accused makes a confession, it could be used to prove a fact or
the discovery of new facts in the investigation. That would be admissible in the court of law. If a
confession is obtained under threat or promise and it proves a fact, it would still be admissible.
The confessions under Section 25 are inadmissible, but if they lead to the discovery of new facts
in the case, would become admissible under Section 27.

To validate the authenticity of such recoveries, the search should occur in the presence of
witnesses. In the case of Mohan Lal v. Ajit Singh1, the accused indicated the location of stolen
goods upon arrest, and the items were found within six days. The court deemed this statement
relevant, and the accused was held liable for murder and robbery based on the evidence obtained.

RATIONALE BEHIND SECTION 27

Section 27 in the evidence act is founded on the principle that if the confession of the accused is
supported by the discovery of a fact, then it can be presumed to be true and not to have been
extracted. So, if a fact is actually discovered in the consequence of information given, some
guarantee is afforded that the information was true and can be safely allowed to be given in
evidence.

When a confession results in the discovery of a fact or object, it is seen as a form of

corroboration that suggests the confession was made voluntarily and not under duress. This
principle helps safeguard against false or forced confessions while still allowing for the
admission of confessions that are more likely to be reliable and trustworthy, serving the interests
of justice in criminal proceedings.

1
1978 AIR 1183, 1978 SCR (3) 823

Page 5 of 16
 Project on Enhancing Legal Discourse:
A Comprehensive Analysis of Evidence in Section 27

DOCTRINE OF CONFIRMATION BY SUBSEQUENT FACTS

Section 27 is also called as doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events 2 because every part of
the statement, made at the instance of the accused, in a police custody should necessarily be
confirmed by the subsequent events of discovery, to make it admissible in court. The provision is
couched in the form of a proviso, i.e., an exception.

The doctrine is founded on the principle that if any fact is discovered in a search made on the
strength of any information obtained from a prisoner, such a discovery is a guarantee that the
information supplied by the prisoner is true 3. The theory of confirmation by subsequent facts
means the statements made in custody are admissible to the extent they can be proved by the
subsequent discovery of facts4.

It is quite possible that the content of the custodial statement could directly lead to the
subsequent discovery of relevant facts rather than their discovery through independent means.
Hence, such statements could also be described as those which furnish a link in the chain of
evidence needed for successful prosecution5. The information might be confessional or non-
inculpatory in nature, but if it results in discovery of a fact it becomes a reliable information 6.

ESSENTIALS OF SECTION 27

It comes into operation only when the following circumstances are fulfilled:

1. The fact must have been discovered in the consequence of the information received from
the accused

2. The person giving the information must be accused of an offence

3. The person must be in the custody of police

2
State of Maharashtra v. Damu Gopinath Shinde, AIR 2000 SC 1691
3
State of Karnataka v.Daikd Razario,(2002) 7 SCC 728:AIR 2002 SC 3272
4
Sarkar, Law of Evidence, pp. 790, (19th Ed., Vol. 1)
5
Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) 7 SCC 263
6
Rumi Bora Dutta v. State of Assam, (2013) 7 SCC 417

Page 6 of 16
 Project on Enhancing Legal Discourse:
A Comprehensive Analysis of Evidence in Section 27

4. Only that portion of information which relates distinctly to the fact discovered can be
proved, and the rest is inadmissible

5. The discovery must be a relevant fact

It is to be noted that only so much of the information as that relates to the facts discovered may
be proved. For instance, in the case of Md. Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra7, the accused
stated, “I will tell the place of deposits of the three chemical drums which I took out from the
Haji Bunder on First August,”. The court held that the only portion relevant was “I will tell the
place of the deposit of the three chemical drums.”

The person giving the information must be accused of any offence

The expression ‘accused of any offence’ is descriptive of the person against whom evidence
relating to information alleged to be given by him is made provable by this section. It does not
predicate a formal accusation against him at the time of making the statement sought to be
proved. Here accused means accused at the trial. Thus, the person may or may not have been an
accused when he made the statement 8. Where a person goes to a police officer and makes a
statement which shows that an offence has been committed by him, he accuses himself and
though he is formally not arrested, since he is not free to move wherever he likes after disclosure
of the information to the police he must be deemed to be in custody of the police within this
section.

The words information received from a person accused of any offence cannot be read to mean
that he must be an accused when he gives the information but would include a person if he
becomes subsequently an accused person, at the time when that statement is sought to be
received in evidence against him.

He must be in custody of a police officer

7
AIR 1976 SC 483
8
State of U.P.v. Deoman, AIR 1960 S.C. 1125: (1960) Cr. L.J. 1504

Page 7 of 16
 Project on Enhancing Legal Discourse:
A Comprehensive Analysis of Evidence in Section 27

Custody connotes some idea of restrain on the on the movement of person whether by word or
action and does not means custody after formal restraint 9. Even indirect control over the
movements of the suspect by the police would amount to police custody. Custody does not
necessarily mean detention or confinement. A person who makes a statement to a police officer
voluntarily confessing that he had committed an act which the penal law regards as an offence
submits himself to the custody of the said officer is within the meaning of this section.

The fact of which evidence is sought to be given must be relevant to the issue

The ‘fact’ must be a ‘relevant fact’. The fact said to have been discovered in consequences of
information received from a person accused of an offence must be of a kind which such
information really helps to bring the light and which it would be difficult to find out otherwise
before it can be treated as of any substantial probative value.

The fact discovered must be in consequences of the information received from the accused, and
the fact should not have been already within the prior knowledge of the police. Though the fact,
of which the discovery is being done, is relevant; but the connection between the offence and the
thing discovered may be established by evidence other than the statement leading to the
discovery10.

Such information must relate distinctly to the fact discovered

The word distinctly, mean indubitably, strictly and unmistakably11. The Supreme Court has
decided that information under section 27 refers to every statement made by the accused to the
police officer and the Police is precluded from proving that information or any part of that unless
it falls under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act..

The information which distinctly relates to the fact discovered is only admissible. But the
statement should not be so truncated as to make inadmissible. So much of the information as

9
Hakam v. the Crown, (1940) 21 Lah. 242
10
Durga Burman (Roy) v. State of Sikkim, AIR 2014 SC 2993
11
Jodha Khoda Rabariv. State of Gujrat, 1992 Cr. L.J. 3298 (Guj)

Page 8 of 16
 Project on Enhancing Legal Discourse:
A Comprehensive Analysis of Evidence in Section 27

strictly relates to the discovery of facts is admissible even though the confession is elicited by
improper inducement. Information must be recorded and, it’s not recorded the exact information
must be adduced through evidence. No such statements relating to a relevant fact is admissible
under the section if it is made after the discovery of that fact or if it does not relate distinctly to
the fact discovered.

Articles concealed in public place

In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jeet Singh12, the court held that there is nothing in section 27 of
the evidence act which renders the statement of the accused person inadmissible if the recovery
of the evidence was made from any place which is open and accessible to others. The crucial
question is whether it was visible to others or not. if it was not, then it is in material that the
concealed place is accessible to the general public.

Information by two or more accused

In a circumstance where two or more persons are accused in a criminal case, and one of the
accused persons gives information in the consequence of which, a fact is discovered. The other
accused persons may subsequently give the same information. In such cases, the information
given by the first accused person will be treated as being under section 27 and may be treated as
evidence against him. But the same statement is not allowed to be treated as evidence against the
other persons who have afterwards made the statement of the same description.

Section 27 must be strictly construed. The use of the word ‘a person’ in singular is significant
and does not allow within its ambit a situation wherein multiple accused persons making the
same statement one after the other, leading to the same discovery. The rationale behind this strict
construction is that the statement of the first accused leads to a discovery, but the subsequent
statement of the other accused persons does not lead to the discovery of any material fact.

If the information had already been given by the main accused in his discloser statement, the
statement of the other accused persons were not admissible in evidence because at the best they
were leading to the rediscovery of a fact already disclosed and capable of discovery 13.

12
AIR 1999 SC 1293
13
Sukhvider Singhv. State of Punjab, (1994) 5 S.C.C. 152

Page 9 of 16
 Project on Enhancing Legal Discourse:
A Comprehensive Analysis of Evidence in Section 27

EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF DISCOVERY UNDER SECTION 27

Discovery under section 27 is a weak kind of evidence and cannot be wholly relied upon in a
serious manner.

In a recent case of Jogiram v. State of Madhya Pradesh 14, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held
that the disclosure statement of Co-accused U/S 27 Evidence Act is alone not sufficient to
implicate another individual in a crime.

DEOMAN UPADHYAY V. STATE OF UP: CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF

SECTION 27 CHALLENGED

Facts of the case

Deoman Upadhyay who was the accused in the present case, was convicted by the trial court of
intentionally causing the death of a person, Sukhdei, with whom he had had a land dispute with.
There was evidence to show that he had also threatened her earlier. One day he allegedly
murdered her with a gandasa and threw it in a tank and absconded.

When he was caught, he offered to take the investigating officer (IO) and some witnesses to the
place where he had hidden the gandasa. Subsequent to this information, the gandasa was
recovered from the time and the serologist confirmed that the human blood on the gandasa was
that of the victim. The discovery of this murder weapon played a major role in his conviction at
the trial court level.

Challenge to section 27, Evidence Act

The accused approached the High Court against the order of the trial court on the grounds that
the discovery under section 27 of the evidence act of the blood stained gandasa could not be used
against him and that it was illegal. The accused challenged the constitutional validity of section
27 on the grounds that it violated the principle of equality enshrined under article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
14
Misc. Criminal Case No. 45785 of 2023

Page 10 of 16
 Project on Enhancing Legal Discourse:
A Comprehensive Analysis of Evidence in Section 27

The accused alleged that section 27 of the Evidence Act discriminated between ‘persons in
custody’ and ‘persons not in custody’, and did not pass the test of reasonable classification
under article 14 of the Constitution.

The preceding provisions of section 24, 25, and 26 apply to all persons, irrespective of the fact If
they are in police custody or not. However, section 27 only applies if the person is in police
custody and not otherwise. This is substantiated by Section 161 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (where the person is not in custody, but only present as a witness) which states that if
a person giving a statement, reveals something self-incriminating, then that statement cannot be
used against him in the court of law.

The accused submitted the same statement which can be proved against an accused person under
section 27 of the Evidence Act, if he is in custody of the police, the same statement will not lead
to any prosecution if he is there in the capacity of a witness and not as an accused.

Decisions of the High Court and the Supreme Court; the concept of DEEMED CUSTODY

The High Court accepted this plea and acquitted the accused, however, the Supreme Court
upheld the Trial court’s order.

The Apex Court held that Section 27 was drafted keeping in view the practical uses of the
evidence act and not theoretical. There is a distinguishing factor between the statements made
under 161 of the CrPC and statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The former
statement is not leading to a discovery, but the latter is.

The court here introduced the concept of ‘DEEMED CUSTODY’. When a person not in
custody approaches a police officer investigating an offence and offers to give information
leading to the discovery of a fact, having bearing on the charge which may be used against
him, he is deemed to have surrendered himself to the police. So every statement which leads to a
Discovery is Deemed to have been made after the person had already surrendered himself to the
police. The foundation of this rule is based upon section 46 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
which does not have any formality before a person is taken into custody.

Page 11 of 16
 Project on Enhancing Legal Discourse:
A Comprehensive Analysis of Evidence in Section 27

SOME OTHER LANDMARK CASE LAWS

Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar15

The Apex Court has held that this section controls sections 24, 25 and 26. The information
becomes admissible only to the extent of the part leading to the discovery of a fact. The facts
discovered should be such which are in exclusive knowledge of the accused and none else. If the
Investigating Officer, after recording information under section 27 of the Act from an accused in
his custody, recovers some incriminating article from an open place accessible to all and sundry,
the information and the discovery lose significance. Likewise, if the fact discovered is known to
the Investigating Officer in advance, then the discovery made in furtherance of the subsequent
information recorded under section 27 at the instance of the accused would be inconsequential.

te of Bombay v Kathi Kalu, AIR

1961 SC 1808
o The information given by an
accused person to a police-officer
leading to the discovery of a
fact which may or may not prove
incriminating has been made
admissible in evidence by the

15
AIR 1966 SC 119

Page 12 of 16
 Project on Enhancing Legal Discourse:
A Comprehensive Analysis of Evidence in Section 27

section unless compulsion has

been used in which case it will be
an infringement of Article
20(3) of the Constitution
 State (NCT) of Delhi v Navjot
Sandhu, AIR 2005 SC 3820
o Where the fact is discovered
not at the instance of the accused
but on the basis of information
supplied by him, the Supreme
Court said that such information is
admissible so long as it is
the immediate and proximate cause
of discovery. The fact that the
informant accused was

Page 13 of 16
 Project on Enhancing Legal Discourse:
A Comprehensive Analysis of Evidence in Section 27

not taken to the spot of recovery

would have no bearing on
admissibility but it might be one
of the aspects that goes into
evaluation of the particular piece
of evidence.
State of Bombay v Kathi Kalu Oghad16

The information given by an accused person to a police-officer leading to the discovery of a fact
which may or may not prove incriminating has been made admissible in evidence by the section
unless compulsion has been used in which case it will be an infringement of Article 20(3) of the
Constitution.

State (NCT) of Delhi v Navjot Sandhu17

Where the fact is discovered not at the instance of the accused but on the basis of information
supplied by him, the Supreme Court said that such information is admissible so long as it is the
immediate and proximate cause of discovery. The fact that the informant accused was not taken
to the spot of recovery would have no bearing on admissibility but it might be one of the aspects
that goes into evaluation of the particular piece of evidence.

Mohd. Aslam v. State of Maharashtra18

It was held that even if panch witnesses turn hostile, the evidence of the person who effected the
recovery would not stand vitiated

16
AIR 1961 SC 1808
17
AIR 2005 SC 3820
18
(2001 (9) SCC 362)

Page 14 of 16
 Project on Enhancing Legal Discourse:
A Comprehensive Analysis of Evidence in Section 27

CONCLUSION
Section 27 of the Evidence Act plays a crucial role in our legal system, serving as a powerful
tool in unraveling the truth. By allowing the admission of statements made by persons who
cannot be called as witnesses, this provision expands the scope of evidence that can be presented
in court. The intention behind Section 27 is clear—to ensure that valuable and true information is
not excluded merely because the person who made the statement was under police custody.
Section 27 of the Evidence Act, thus, stands as a testament to the evolving nature of our legal
framework, adapting to the challenges of ensuring justice in a dynamic society. Its careful
application, guided by principles of fairness and reliability, contributes to the pursuit of truth
within the bounds of the law.

Section 27 of the Evidence Act serves as a valuable tool for the prosecution in building a case.
This section can be a powerful ally for prosecutors, especially when dealing with cases where
witnesses may be unavailable, reluctant, or even deceased. It enables the court to consider
statements that, under normal circumstances, might not have been admissible. This flexibility
can be instrumental in ensuring that those who commit crimes do not escape justice simply
because a witness is unavailable.

Page 15 of 16
 Project on Enhancing Legal Discourse:
A Comprehensive Analysis of Evidence in Section 27

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Sarathi, Vepa P. “Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act (I of 1872)—Sir James Stephen
and Deoman Upadhyaya.” Journal of the Indian Law Institute, vol. 6, no. 2/3, 1964, pp.
332–37. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43949812. Accessed 5 Nov. 2023.
2. “Constitutional Law—Article14—If Section 27 of the Evidence Act Is Ultra Vires—The
State of Uttar Pradesh v Deoman Upadhyaya.” Journal of the Indian Law Institute, vol. 2,
no. 2/3, 1960, pp. 459–64. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43953771. Accessed 5
Nov. 2023.
3. Winslow, V. S. “CONFESSION, CONFIRMATION AND RESURRECTION: THE
RESCUE OF INADMISSIBLE INFORMATION TO THE POLICE.” Malaya Law
Review, vol. 24, no. 1, 1982, pp. 88–118. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24863701.
Accessed 6 Nov. 2023.
4. Sarathi, Vepa P. “HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT,
1872.” Journal of the Indian Law Institute, 1972, pp. 1–25. JSTOR,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/43950171. Accessed 8 Nov. 2023.
5. James Stephen, ‘Principles of Judicial Evidence’
6. Vepa P. Sarathi, ‘Law of Evidence’
7. Ratanlal & Dhirajla, ‘The Law of Evidence’
8. Avtar Singh, ‘Principles of The Law of Evidence’

Websites:

1. www.lexinexis.com
2. www.articlesonlaw.com
3. scconline.com
4. manupatrafast.com
5. heinonline.org

Page 16 of 16