An accused, arrested during the investigation of a murder case made a statement to the police that he had buried the ear-rings…. Is the statement of the accused admissible in evidence?

Question: An accused, arrested during the investigation of a murder case made a statement to the police that he had buried the ear-rings of the deceased under the tree at a particular place.

The earrings were recovered from the said place at his instance. Is the statement of the accused admissible in evidence? [H.P.H.J.S. 2003, D.J.S. Exam., 1984]

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [An accused, arrested during the investigation of a murder case made a statement to the police that he had buried the ear-rings…. Is the statement of the accused admissible in evidence?]

Answer

Section 27 starts with the word “provided”. Therefore, it is a proviso by way of an exception to sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act.

This section is based on the view that if a fact is actually discovered in consequence of information given, some guarantee is afforded thereby that the information was true and accordingly can be safely allowed to be given in evidence. But clearly the extent of the information admissible must depend on the exact nature of the fact discovered to which such information is required to relate.

If a statement leads to a discovery of a fact related to the crime, it becomes admissible, even if it was extorted out of the accused. This acts as an exception to Section 26.

To certify the genuineness of the recoveries, they should be made in presence of witnesses. In Mohan Lal v. Ajit Singh (AIR 1978 SC 1183), the accused, on arrest, indicated where he had kept the stolen goods, and the same was found within six days. The court held that his liability can be inferred from the statement and was held liable for murder and robbery. A statement made cannot be used against other co-accused, as was held in Satish Chandra Seal v. Emperor (AIR 1943 Cal 137).

As observed in the case of Bulaqi v. The Crown [ILR (1928) 9 Lah 671, 675], the main purpose of excluding confessions made to the police is that there remains a possibility that false confessions are made due to pressure from the police. But if the confession is corroborated by the discovery of the facts that are being confessed then the whole purpose of disbelieving the confession made under police custody is destroyed.

Therefore, in the present case at hand, where an accused, arrested during the investigation of a murder case made a statement to the police that he had buried the ear-rings of the deceased under the tree at a particular place and the ear-rings were later recovered by the police from the said place at his instance, the confession of the accused is said to have been made voluntary and under no pressure and can be proved against him pointing towards his guilt in the crime.

---

Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

1. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-I
2. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-II
3. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-III
4. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-IV
5. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-V
6. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VI
7. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VII
8. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VIII
9. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-IX
10. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-X