Section 27 of Evidence Act For More Lucidity

• If the “information” to be received from an accused person in the custody of a Police Officer should be regarding a “fact discovered”,

                                       AND

• If the words “fact discovered” occurring in Section 27 (as explained in Pulukuri Kottaya AIR 1947 PC 67) do not take in the weapon recovered but only –
• the “place” where the weapon is concealed

                                   AND

• the “knowledge” of the accused regarding the said place

If the said “information” received from the accused regarding the “fact discovered” is to be deposed to during trial,

If consequent on such information given by the accused he need not personally lead the police party to the said place of concealment (as held in para 24 of Raveendran v. State 1989 (2) KLJ 534 (DB) and para 142 of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005) 11 SCC 600),

If in law, the giving of the disclosure statement by the accused and the recovery of the weapon need not be heard or seen by any public witness (as held in para 70 of S. C. Bahri v. State of Bihar AIR 1994 SC 2420; Para 25 of State of H. P. v. Jeet Singh AIR 1999 SC 1293; Para 21 of Praveen Kumar v. State of Karnataka (2003) 12 SCC 199; Para 22 of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sunil (2001) 1 SCC 652 followed by a three-Judge Bench in para 439 of Mukesh v. NCT of Delhi AIR 2017 SC 2161).

If in law, the above proceedings need not be reduced to writing in the form of a Panchanama or a Mahazar since this is not search of a “closed place” falling under Section 100 (4) Cr.P.C (as was held in para 19 of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sunil (2001) 1 SCC 652) ,

If the resultant recovery of the weapon amounts to “confirmation by subsequent event” of the “fact discovered” (as held in Bodhraj v. State of J & K Air 2002 SC 3164 and other verdicts),

THEN MY HUMBLE OPINION IS THAT –

1. It is only in cases where the accused while in custody of the police officer discloses the place of concealment of the weapon and from such disclosure, it is possible for the police officer to recover the weapon from the hiding place without any further assistance or participation by the accused, can it be said that the recovery falls under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Even in such cases, if, after disclosing the place of concealment of the weapon, the accused aids or leads the police in recovering the weapon from the already disclosed hiding place, the case would nevertheless fall under Section 27.
2. If in a case the accused does not disclose the place of concealment of the weapon to the Police officer while in custody, but instead, merely says that he has hidden the weapon in a secret place and thereafter he leads the police party to the hiding place of the weapon and either points out the weapon or takes out the same from the exact spot, the case does not fall under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. But the act of the accused pointing out the weapon without disclosing the place of concealment of the same may possibly amount to a conduct falling under Section 8 of the Evidence Act.