Confession Of Accused Can't Be Proved Under S.27 Evidence Act, Only Statements Relating To Discovery Of Facts Admissible: Supreme Court
Section 27 Evidence Act
The Supreme Court clarified that under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, only the specific portion of the statement of the accused which is directly linked to the discovery/recovery of evidence is admissible, and that the confession of the accused cannot be incorporated while proving a statement under Section 27. The Court held that inadmissible parts of such statements cannot be incorporated in the prosecution witness's chief examination.
The bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and AG Masih expressed concern about trial courts getting influenced if such inadmissible confessions are incorporated.
In this case (an appeal against a conviction in the murder case), the accused allegedly statements regarding the place where the dead body was disposed of. However, the examination-in-chief of the investigating officer included the confession of the accused about his involvement in the murder.
The Court observed that the investigating officer attempted to prove the confessions allegedly made by the accused to a police officer, which is impermissible.
"There is a complete prohibition on even proving such confessions. The learned Trial Judge has completely lost sight of Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act and has allowed PW-27 to prove the confessions allegedly made by the accused while they were in police custody," the Court observed.
Justice Oka, in the judgment, criticized this practice, emphasizing that the trial court should not have included the inadmissible confession in the deposition. According to Section 27 of the Evidence Act, only the portion of the accused's confessional statement that directly leads to the discovery of facts while in police custody is admissible.
“What is admissible is only such information furnished by the accused as relates distinctly to the facts thereby discovered. No other part is admissible. By Exhibits 'P55' and 'P56', it is alleged that the accused showed the places where the deceased was abducted, where he was murdered and where his body was thrown. In this case, even the inadmissible part of the statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act has been incorporated in the examination-in-chief of PW-27. The learned trial judge should not have recorded an inadmissible confession in the deposition. A confessional statement made by the accused to a police officer while in custody is not admissible in the evidence except to the extent to which Section 27 is applicable. If such inadmissible confessions are made part of the depositions of the prosecution witnesses, then there is every possibility that the Trial Courts may get influenced by it.”, the court said.
Since, the entire prosecution case was based on circumstantial evidence which was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and the chain of events was not established to convict the accused, hence the court acquitted the accused charged with offences of abduction and murder under IPC.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.
Case Title: RANDEEP SINGH @ RANA & ANR. versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 914