Published on: 09 November 2022 at 12:54 IST
Court – Supreme Court of India
Citation – State of Maharashtra v/s Damu (2000) 6 SCC 269
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is based on Doctrine of Confirmation by virtue of subsequent events. It is held 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.
It is held that if information which might be confessional or non-inculpatory in nature, but if it results in discovery of a fact it becomes a reliable information.
Para – 35
The basic idea embedded in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events. 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. The information might be confessional or non-inculpatory in nature, but if it results in discovery of a fact it becomes a reliable information.
Hence the legislature permitted such information to be used as evidence by restricting the admissible portion to the minimum. It is now well settled that recovery of an object is not discovery of a fact as envisaged in the section.
The decision of the Privy Council in Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor [AIR 1947 PC 67 : 74 IA 65] is the most quoted authority for supporting the interpretation that the “fact discovered” envisaged in the section embraces the place from which the object was produced, the knowledge of the accused as to it, but the information given must relate distinctly to that effect.
Drafted By Abhijit Mishra
Key Words – Doctrine of Confirmation, Confession, non-inculpatory.
