- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- Rajasthan High Court
- /
- Confession U/S 27 Evidence Act Not...
Confession U/S 27 Evidence Act Not Reliable Until There Is Discovery To Corroborate Its Veracity: Rajasthan High Court
Nupur Agrawal
18 July 2024 5:35 PM IST
Rajasthan High Court ruled that any information gathered under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (“the Act”), is required to be corroborated and supported by recovering or discovering something in pursuance to that information which distinctly relates to the commission of the crime to verify the confession made by the accused to the police officer. Section 27 of the...
Rajasthan High Court ruled that any information gathered under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (“the Act”), is required to be corroborated and supported by recovering or discovering something in pursuance to that information which distinctly relates to the commission of the crime to verify the confession made by the accused to the police officer.
Section 27 of the Act provides that when any fact is discovered as a result of information received from an accused in the custody of a police officer, such information, as related distinctly to the fact discovered, may be proved.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali was considering a bail application filed by the accused charged under the NDPS Act.
The petitioner challenged their incarceration primarily on grounds that they were implicated based on a confessional statement made by a co-accused during police custody. The counsel for the petitioner argued that this statement, not falling under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, should not be admissible as evidence against them.
After hearing both sides and reviewing the material, the Court noted that the confessional statement of the co-accused did not lead to any new discovery or recovery implicating the petitioner. It emphasized that Section 27 of the Evidence Act requires a direct connection between the information provided and the discovery of facts related to the crime, which was absent in this case.
Referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in Mohd. Inayatullah vs. State of Maharashtra, the Court highlighted that only components directly leading to discovery are admissible under Section 27.
Consequently, the Court granted bail to the accused-petitioners, citing that their implication was solely based on the statement of a co-accused without corroborative evidence of their involvement. It remarked,
"It is the admitted case of prosecution that in pursuance of the information furnished under Section 27 of the Evidence Act regarding the culpability of the petitioners, nothing new was disclosed, recovered or discovered. This court is of the view that at least there must be some corroborations or support to verify the confession made by the accused to the Police Officer while in lockup."
Title: Dheerap Singh v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 154
