The High Court of Kerala has underscored the strict prerequisites that must be satisfied for a statement and recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to be admissible, emphasising that such provisions cannot be applied mechanically and must adhere to well-recognised safeguards. The court reaffirmed that Section 27 constitutes a specific exception to the general prohibition against confessions to police officers (as delineated in Sections 24 to 26 of the Act), and that its proper application depends on the fulfillment of three essential conditions.
Firstly, the Court held that the information or disclosure should originate from an accused person, typically in the custody of the police. The rationale is that the accused’s disclosure triggers the subsequent discovery of a fact or object relevant to the investigation. Secondly, the disclosure must lead directly to the discovery of a fact — affirmatively, an object hidden, a place identified, or a circumstance revealed that was previously unknown and would not have been found without the accused’s information. Thirdly, the fact thus discovered must be deposed to by a competent witness in court — meaning that the prosecution must bring forward testimony regarding the recovered object or discovered fact such that it links back to the accused’s statement. Absent these conditions, the value of the disclosure under Section 27 is severely limited or may be altogether inadmissible.
The Court further emphasised that while Section 27 allows admissibility of “so much of the information” as directly relates to the fact discovered, it does not open the door to the entire confession or collateral admissions made by the accused. Only the portion of the statement that leads to the discovery is admissible; statements about guilt, motive, or other extraneous matters remain outside the scope of Section 27. The decision also cautioned that recoveries made under Section 27 are vulnerable to procedural infirmities — for example, failing to properly record the “mahazar” (memorandum of recovery), having irregularities in search protocol, or the absence of independent witnesses — all of which may call into question the credibility of the recovery and weaken its admissibility.
In applying these principles, the Court made clear that a recovery under Section 27 cannot itself prove the offence or the accused’s guilt. The mere fact that a weapon, ingot, or other incriminating material was recovered at the accused’s instance does not suffice; there must be corroboration linking the accused to the offence beyond the recovery. The court warned that reliance on Section 27 must be accompanied by scrutiny of the investigating officer’s narrative of how the accused’s information led to the recovery, the document trails generated, and whether the discovery was truly consequent to the accused’s disclosure and not through independent police activity.
In sum, the decision of the Kerala High Court reinforces that Section 27 operates as an exception of limited scope within the scheme of the Evidence Act, permitting only narrowly defined admissions resulting directly in discovery. The judgment mandates adherence to procedural safeguards, rigorous proof of the link between disclosure and discovery, and careful evaluation of the admissibility and weight of such evidence in criminal trials.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.