LI Network
Published on: January 5, 2024 at 11:05 IST
In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court clarified the conditions governing the application of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, emphasizing four critical criteria. Referring to the case Mohmed Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra., (1976), Justices Sanjiv Khanna and S.V.N. Bhatti emphasized the importance of the following conditions to invoke this provision.
The first condition involves the discovery of a fact relevant due to information received from the accused. The second condition requires the deposition about the discovery of such a fact. Importantly, the accused must be in police custody at the time of providing the information, which the Court clarified as encompassing any form of police restraint or surveillance, not just formal arrest. The final crucial condition mandates the admissibility of only the information distinctly related to the discovered fact, excluding the rest.
The Court elaborated on the term ‘distinctly,‘ explaining its purpose to confine the admissible information to what is direct, indubitable, and strictly relevant to the discovery.
The judgment highlighted that the discovery of fact encompasses the accused’s knowledge, not merely the physical object found. This interpretation was supported by precedents such as State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru., (2005)
Additionally, the Court interpreted ‘custody’ under this section, expanding it beyond formal custody to include any form of police restriction or surveillance.
These clarifications were made during the hearing of a criminal appeal concerning the murder of Rajini @ Rajinikanth. The appellant, while detained in another case, disclosed information leading to the recovery of the deceased’s body parts, ultimately resulting in the appellant’s arrest.
Upon examining the case’s facts and circumstances, the Court affirmed the appellant’s conviction for Rajnikanth’s murder under Section 302 of the IPC. The judgment emphasized that the acquittal’s relevance and evidentiary value were insufficient to exonerate the appellant.
