How much information received from an accused can be proven in a trial against him? Ram, an accused of an offence of murder stated… Is the whole statement given by the accused admissible in evidence?

Question: How much information received from an accused can be proven in a trial against him? Ram, an accused of an offence of murder stated before a police officer that, the knife which I have killed Sohan has been hidden by me in the field, which I can recover”.

On this information, the police officer discovers the said knife from the field, on which human blood is detected. Is the whole statement given by the accused admissible in evidence? If not, what parts or parts are admissible in evidence? Give the reasons clearly. [U.P.H.J.S. 2009]

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [How much information received from an accused can be proven in a trial against him? Ram, an accused of an offence of murder stated… Is the whole statement given by the accused admissible in evidence?]

Answer

Section 25 of the Evidence Act provides that no confession made to a police officer shall be proved against the person accused of any offence. Section 26 provides that no confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer unless it is made in the immediate presence of a magistrate shall be proved as against such person.

Section 27 provides how much information received from an accused person may be proved. It says that “when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence 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.

Section 27 is by way of a proviso to sections 25 and 26 and a statement even by way of confession made in police custody which distinctly relates to the fact discovered is admissible in evidence against the accused; Delhi Administration v. Balkrishnan, AIR 1972 SC 3. The section seems to be 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.

Section 27 provides an exception to the prohibition imposed by the preceding sections. By this section information, even if amounted to a confession and was made to a police officer under any circumstances may be proved, or rather so much of it may be proved as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered. So much of the information as strictly relates to the discovery of facts is admissible even though the confession is elicited, of improper inducement.

It should be noted that mere discovery of the fact as a result of information from the accused doesn’t make it admissible, unless its relevancy is established, by other evidence showing the connection, between the fact discovered and the offence, charged and the accused. In this connection, it should be noted that the production of articles and statements accompanying or explaining such production is also evidence of conduct under section 8.

The words “so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered” are very important and the whole force of the section is concentrated on him as West J. illustrates in R v. Jora Hasji, BHCR 242.

“For instance, a man says, you will find a stick at such and such place. I killed Rama with it.” A policeman ins such a case may be allowed to say he went to the place indicated and found the stick, but any statement as to the confession of murder would be inadmissible.”

So when a person in custody informs the police: I will produce a knife concealed in the roof of my house. It leads to the discovery of the fact that the knife is concealed in the house of the informant to his knowledge.

But if to the statement, the words are added “with which I stabbed A”, these words are inadmissible since they do not relate top the discovery of knife ion the house of the informant; Pulukuri Kotayya v. Emperor, AIR 1947 pc 67. In this case, while explaining the principle underlying section 27, Sir John Beaumont observed:

“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. That ban imposed by the two preceding sections) was presumably inspired by7 the fear of the legislature that a person under police influence might be induced to confess by the exercise of undue pressure.

But if all that is required to lift the ban be the inclusion in the confession of information relating to an object subsequently produced, it seems reasonable to suppose that the persuasive powers of the police will prove equal to the occasion and that in practice the ban will lose its effect.”

Thus, from the above analysis, it can be concluded that the portion of the statement “by which I have killed Sohan” is inadmissible in evidence.

---

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