2015 (10) TMI 2857 - SC - Indian Laws

Admissibility of confessional statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act - possession of fake currency notes of Rs. 100 denomination were found - conviction and sentence of the Appellants for commission of offence Under Section 489C - HELD THAT - There was discovery of a fact as per the statement of Mehmood Ali and Mohd. Firoz. Co-accused was nabbed on the basis of identification made by the accused Mehboob and Firoz. He was dealing with fake currency notes came to the knowledge of police through them. Recovery of forged currency notes was also made from Anju Ali. Thus the aforesaid accused had the knowledge about co-accused Anju Ali who was nabbed at their instance and on the basis of their identification. These facts were not to the knowledge of the Police hence the statements of the accused persons leading to discovery of fact are clearly admissible as per the provisions contained in Section 27 of the Evidence Act which carves out an exception to the general provisions about inadmissibility of confession made under police custody contained in Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. The judgment and order of sentence passed by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court are found to be appropriate - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of confessional statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
2. Legality of convictions based on recoveries made from accused.
3. Validity of the identification process and subsequent arrests.
4. Applicability of Sections 25, 26, and 27 of the Evidence Act.
5. Examination of the chain of events leading to the discovery of facts.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Admissibility of Confessional Statements Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act:
The appellants argued that the confessional statements recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act were inadmissible as they were made under police custody. The court clarified that Section 27 acts as a proviso to Sections 25 and 26, allowing certain parts of a confessional statement to be admissible if they lead to the discovery of a fact unknown to the police. The court cited several precedents, including *Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor* and *State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu*, to emphasize that the discovery of a fact includes the place from which an object is produced and the knowledge of the accused about it.

2. Legality of Convictions Based on Recoveries Made from Accused:
The court upheld the convictions, noting that the recoveries of fake currency notes from the accused were corroborated by multiple witnesses and documentary evidence. The trial court and the High Court had found the evidence sufficient to convict the appellants under Sections 489C and 489B read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The court emphasized that the chain of events, starting from the arrest of Puran Mal and leading to the recovery of fake currency notes from various accused, was well-established.

3. Validity of the Identification Process and Subsequent Arrests:
The court found that the identification of Anju Ali and Majhar by Mehboob Ali and Firoz was valid. The identification was supported by witnesses Vinod Sharma (PW-11) and Mukesh Yadav (PW-13), despite Vinod turning hostile. The court noted that the identification led to the recovery of a significant amount of fake currency notes, thereby corroborating the statements made by the accused.

4. Applicability of Sections 25, 26, and 27 of the Evidence Act:
The court elaborated on the applicability of Sections 25, 26, and 27 of the Evidence Act. Section 25 states that no confession made to a police officer shall be proved against an accused. Section 26 extends this to confessions made while in police custody unless made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. Section 27, however, allows for the admissibility of information leading to the discovery of a fact, which was not known to the police before. The court found that the information provided by the accused led to the discovery of facts and arrests, making the statements admissible under Section 27.

5. Examination of the Chain of Events Leading to the Discovery of Facts:
The court meticulously examined the chain of events, starting from the arrest of Puran Mal and the subsequent recoveries and arrests. It noted that the information provided by each accused led to further discoveries, thereby establishing a conspiracy involving multiple individuals. The court cited the case of *State of Maharashtra v. Damu Gopinath Shinde* to support the admissibility of statements leading to the discovery of facts unknown to the police.

Conclusion:
The court found no merit in the appeals and upheld the judgments and sentences passed by the trial court and the High Court. The appeals were dismissed, affirming the convictions and sentences of the appellants.