By Saurav Yadav
Published on: December 22, 2023 at 17:18 IST
In the realm of criminal law, the admissibility of evidence plays a crucial role in determining the guilt or innocence of an accused individual. Section 27 of the Evidence Act holds particular significance as it addresses the delicate issue of statements made by the accused during the process of recovering material evidence.
“Recovery of evidence” refers to the process of finding and collecting items, objects, or information that are relevant to a criminal investigation or legal proceeding. This evidence is often discovered at the crime scene, and its recovery is crucial for establishing facts, determining guilt or innocence, and ensuring a fair and just legal process. The term “recovery” emphasizes the action of retrieving or locating evidence.
In some cases, the accused may provide statements or information that leads to the recovery of evidence. However, the admissibility of such statements may be subject to legal scrutiny and may fall under the purview of legal provisions such as Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is a essential provision that deals with how confessions are made through an accused man or woman may be used as evidence in a court of regulation. This section lays down the conditions under which a confession may be admissible and gives steering at the weight that may be attached to such statements.
Section 27 specially addresses the admissibility of confessions in crook instances. According to Section 27, any statement made with the aid of an accused person inside the custody of a police officer may be used as proof towards them.
However, there are positive conditions that must be met for a confession to be admissible.
Firstly, the confession must be made voluntarily and with none coercion or inducement. This guarantees that the accused person isn’t pressured or forced to make a false confession.
Secondly, the confession must be made to a police officer who is not in authority over the accused. This method that the confession must be made to a police officer who does not have the power to steer or control the accused character’s destiny inside the case.
This circumstance prevents any misuse of authority through the police and ensures that the confession is obtained in a fair way. Furthermore, the confession need to relate to the fee of an offense.
In other words, the announcement made by means of the accused individual ought to immediately implicate them inside the crime they’re being charged with.
This circumstance ensures that the confession is applicable to the case to hand and may assist in setting up the guilt or innocence of the accused.
In this article we shall comprehensively discuss the admissibility of Recovery evidence under section 27 of IEA.
Section 27 of IEA
Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act states, How much of information received from accused may be proved – Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered inconsequence 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.
The key principle embodied in Section 27 is that any information or statement leading to the discovery of a fact is admissible as evidence. This applies specifically to statements made by the accused while in custody or during the investigation process. The crucial element is the direct connection between the information provided and the subsequent recovery of material evidence.
Essentials for confessions under Section 27 of IEA:
- Voluntary Nature of Statements: For a statement to be admissible under Section 27, it must be voluntary. Coerced or involuntary statements are not covered by this provision.
- Relevance to the Discovery of Facts: The information provided by the accused must directly lead to the discovery of a fact. This could include the location of a weapon, the identity of an accomplice, or any other material evidence relevant to the case.
- Caution against Abuse: Courts exercise caution when dealing with statements obtained during custodial interrogation. Section 27 seeks to prevent the abuse of power and ensure that information provided by the accused is reliable and truthful.
Evidentiary value of statements recorded under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act
The evidentiary value of statements recorded below Section 27 lies inside the fact that they can be used to corroborate the invention of a fact.
Statements recorded underneath Section 27 may be valuable as corroborative evidence, their admissibility is challenge to sure conditions. The courtroom carefully examines the relevance of the records to the fact discovered and guarantees that the rights of the accused are protected throughout the admission of such proof.
In the case of Naresh Chandra Das and Another. Vs Emperor it was held that No statement apart from a death declaration made by using any man or woman to a police officer inside the path of a research beneath this Chapter shall, if decreased to writing, be signed by using the person making it or be used as proof in opposition to the accused. Nothing on this segment will be deemed to affect the provisions of segment 27, Indian evidence Act 1872.
The supreme Court in the case of Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma v. State of Bombay, held that if a statement made by the accused leads to the discovery of a fact that is relevant to the crime, such a statement is admissible under Section 27.
In the case of Raja Ram v. State of Bihar, Court emphasized that the information leading to the discovery must be precise and definite. If the information is vague or general, it may not be admissible under Section 27.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the admissibility of evidence is a cornerstone in criminal law, playing a important role in determining the guilt or innocence of an accused individual. Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act holds particular significance, addressing the delicate issue of statements made by the accused during the process of recovering material evidence.
The recovery of evidence, encompassing physical, documentary, and digital forms, is essential for establishing facts and ensuring a fair legal process. In some cases, the accused may provide statements leading to the recovery of evidence, subject to legal scrutiny, especially under provisions like Section 27.
Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act specifically governs the admissibility of statements made by the accused during custodial interrogation. The voluntary nature of statements, their relevance to the discovery of facts, and caution against abuse are key considerations. The section ensures that confessions are obtained fairly and are directly connected to the discovery of material evidence.
Edited by Bharti Verma, Associate Editor at Law insider
