Although a confession made to a police officer cannot be proved yet some information received from the accused in the confession can be proved. Discuss.

Question: Although a confession made to a police officer cannot be proved yet some information received from the accused in the confession can be proved. Discuss. [U.P.C.J. 1997, BIHAR J. 2000]

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [Although a confession made to a police officer cannot be proved yet some information received from the accused in the confession can be proved. Discuss.]

Answer

An admission of an accused person confirmed by subsequent facts would be admissible in evidence not only under Section 27 but also under Section 21.

Section 27 applies only when the information is received from an accused in custody and a statement confirmed by subsequent facts is admissible under this section if made after the arrest while the person is in custody but not if made prior to it.

In the landmark case of Deoman Upadhyaya v. State [AIR 1960 All] before the SC the court observed against the constitutionality of section 27 and observed that all that Section 27 does is to make certain evidence admissible; it does not thereby seal the fate of the accused against whom it is admitted.

The fate of the accused does not always depend entirely upon the evidence admitted under Section 27; he may be acquitted notwithstanding the evidence and he may be convicted even if the evidence was not admitted. The value of the evidence in most cases is very limited; it only goes to show that the accused had knowledge regarding the whereabouts of an incriminating article, and no further. It is only a piece of circumstantial evidence and is by itself insufficient to prove that the accused committed the offence.

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

As observed in the case of Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma v. State of Bombay, (1955) SCR 903 section 27 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.

Further in State of Maharashtra v. Damu Gopinath Shinde, (2000) 6 SCC 269, In the light of section 27, whatever information was given by the accused, in consequence of which a fact is discovered, only would be admissible in evidence, whether such information amounts to a confession or not.

The basic idea embedded under this section 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 the discovery of a fact, it becomes reliable information.

Thus, the aforesaid cases and their observation upon section 27 upheld the validity of the statement that although a confession made to a police officer cannot be proved yet some information received from the accused in the confession can be proved by virtue of this section.

---

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