9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 701X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... king it difficult to be noticed. The evidence tendered is totally silent as to in whose custody were the bullets, empty cartridges and the pistol. The effect of such nonexplanation was considered by this Court in Santa Singh v. State of Punjab [ 1956 (2) TMI 84 - SUPREME COURT (LB)] . Although the interpretation and scope of Section 27 has been the subject of several authoritative pronouncements, its application to concrete cases in the background events proved therein is not always free from difficulty. It will, therefore, be worthwhile at the outset, to have a short and swift glance at Section 27 and be reminded of its requirements. The Section says : Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved. At one time it was held that the expression fact discovered in the section is restricted to a physical or material fact which can be perceived by the senses, and that it does not include a mental fact, now it is fairly settled t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nformation in terms of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short the Evidence Act ). Search was made in the presence of accused and a pistol was recovered. The empty cartridges and the pistol were sent for forensic examination. During post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased bullets were recovered which were also sent for such examination. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was placed. The accused persons pleaded innocence. 37 witnesses were examined to substantiate the prosecution version. The Trial Court found that the evidence was not sufficient to fasten guilt on the co-accused, while holding appellant guilty as above noted. Appeal to the High Court did not bring any relief. In support of the appeal, learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the fate of the case depends upon the acceptability of evidence relating to recovery purportedly on the basis of information given by the accused while in custody. He pointed out that there are several circumstances which show that the prosecution has tried to create evidence. In essence it is submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish its case and has presented a fabricated and improper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed from the spot has not been established. In fact, the claim is that on 11.4.1979 empty cartridges were recovered. They were sent to the forensic science laboratory on 12.5.1979. It has not been explained as to where the empty cartridges were till then lying and with whom. Similar is the situation with the two bullets claimed to have been extracted from the dead body by the doctor. It has been accepted by PW-36 that the empty cartridges and the bullets were not deposited with the ballistic expert prior to the recovery of the pistol claimed to have been made on 29.4.1979. Significantly, though the witnesses claimed that the moulds, chappals found at the spot, the empty cartridges, the two bullets extracted and the pistol were sealed before being sent to the expert for examination and that they were sealed on the date they were recovered, but PW-23 who claimed to have taken the parcel to the laboratory categorically admitted that the packets were sealed in the Kotwali in his presence on the date he had taken for deposit with the laboratory i.e. 11.5.1979 and, in fact, the articles were deposited on 12.5.1979. Though the witness stated that different seals were used, a bare perusal o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Police that the empty cartridge case had to be kept at the police station till the rifle used was recovered so that both might be sent to the expert for his opinion, nothing has been stated why after the rifle was recovered on the 28th September, 1954, along with 24 cartridges from the house of the accused, it was incumbent for the Police to retain the parcels of rifle and empty cartridge case with them till the 11th October, 1954. Naturally this inordinate delay raises much suspicion and has given rise to the suggestion on the part of the accused made in the course of the cross-examination of the Sub-Inspector that the empty cartridge case ultimately sent to the expert relates to a cartridge that was fired by them at the Police Station and is not the one recovered at the spot. The scope and ambit of Section 27 of the Evidence Act were illuminatingly stated in Pulukuri Kotayya v. Emperor (AIR 1947 PC 67) in the following words, which have become locus classicus: It is fallacious to treat the fact discovered within the section as equivalent to the object produced; the fact discovered embraces the place from which the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered is admissible. The rest of the information has to be excluded. The word distinctly means directly , indubitably , strictly , unmistakably . The word has been advisedly used to limit and define the scope of the provable information. The phrase distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered and is the linchpin of the provision. This phrase refers to that part of the information supplied by the accused which is the direct and immediate cause of the discovery. The reason behind this partial lifting of the ban against confessions and statements made to the police, is that if a fact is actually discovered in consequence of information given by the accused, it affords some guarantee of truth of that part, and that part only, of the information which was the clear, immediate and proximate cause of the discovery. No such guarantee or assurance attaches to the rest of the statement which may be indirectly or remotely related to the fact discovered. (See Mohammed Inayuttillah v. The State of Maharashtra (AIR 1976 SC 483). At one time it was held that the expression fact discovered in the section is restricted to a physical or material fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
