(Sec.

27) - How much of information received from accused in police

custody may be proved

Section 27 is an exemption to the preceding three Sections 24, 25 and 26.

According to Section 27, when an information, given by the accused in police
custody leads to the discovery of an incriminating material object, like
jewellery, weapons etc. that portion of the information can be proved. The
reason is such discovery guarantees truth of the information.

Eg.: A is tried for murder of B. If A, in police custody says I have killed B

and buried the dead body in my garden*. Accordingly, if the body is found,
As statement (confession) becomes provable under Sec.27.

Conditions For application of Section 27, the following conditions are

to be satisfied.

1. The accused in police custody has given some information in his

confessional statement
2. Such information must relate to the discovery of certain fact relating to
the commission of some offence.
3. In pursuance of such information, the police discovered certain facts.
4. The facts discovered must be connected with (or relevant to) the offence.

When the above conditions are satisfied, only that

portion of the information, which directly relates to the fact
discovered, shall be relevant.
Case - Pulukuri Kotaiah vs. Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67 : 1948 Cr.LJ 533:

In this case, the accused was charged with the offence of rioting with murder.
The accused made a confession to police as, About 14 days ago 1, Kotayya
and people of my party lay in wait for Sivayya and others at about sunset time
at the comer of pulipad tank. We all beat Boddupati China Sivayya and
Subbayya to death. The remaining persons Pullavya, Kotayya and Narain ran
away. Dondapati Ramaya, who was in our party, received blows on his hands.
He had a spear in his hands. He gave it to me then I hid it and my stick in the
rick of Venkatanrasu in the village, I will show you if you come. We did all. this
at the instigation of Pulukuri Kotayya. In pursuance of this statement, the
police recovered (discovered) the spear. It was held that the second part of the
confession leading to the discovery of the dead body becomes provable
(admissible) under Section 27.
 The word discovery* under Sec.27 can be understood in two senses:
Firstly, discovery means purely a mental act, learning something which was not
known earlier. Secondly, it may be a physical fact, that is, finding upon search
of some fact, the existence or the exact locality of which was not known earlier.
Section 27 applies to the latter. In other words, Section 27, has no application
to the discovery of the psychological facts.

Thimma vs. State of Mysore, AIR 1971 SC 1871, 1971 Cr.LJ 1314 (SC):

In this case, the accused was charged with the murder of his mistress
and the dead body of the lady was found in a gunny bag left in a railway
compartment. The accused was arrested. He pointed out the shop where he
had purchased the gunny bag and he also pointed out the cooley whom he had
engaged for carrying the gunny bag. This information was held to be
inadmissible because it leads only to the discovery of a psychological fact, and
not, to the discovery of some physical fact. The word discovery in Section 27
has been used in the sense of discovery of some material object.

As held by the Privy Council in Pulukuri Kotayyas case, the Supreme

Court in Udaibhan vs. State of JJ.P. AIR 1962 SC 1116 laid down that a
discovery of fact includes

i) the object found;

ii) place from which it is produced; and
iii) the knowledge of the accused as to its existence.

CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF SECTION 27

The validity of Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was challenged on
the ground that, it violates Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution.

According to Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution, No person accused of

an offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. It is the
responsibility of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused.

The constitutional validity of Section 27, . Indian Evidence Act was challenged
on the ground that, using information given by the accused for discovery of a
fact against him, makes the accused, a witness against himself.

Before the constitution came into force, the information leading to

discovery was provable and admissible, whether it was given by the accused
 voluntarily or against compulsion.

After the constitution came in to force, such information obtained by

compulsion is not admissible on the ground that, it violates Article 20(3) of
the constitution.

Case - In State of Bombay vs. Kati Kallu Oghad (AIR 1961 SC 1808) -
That, such information obtained does not give rise to a presumption that the
information was given under compulsion. It is the prosecution to find out
whether the accused gave the information voluntarily or by compulsion.

Sections 28 and 29 provide for exceptions to Section 24. That is to

say that confessions made after removal of impression caused by
inducement, threat or promise are RELEVANT (Section 28), and confession
under the promise of secrecy (Section 29).

(Section 30)- Consideration of proved confession affecting person

making it and others jointly under trial for same offence

When more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same
offence, and a confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and
some other of such persons is proved, the Court may take into consideration
such confession as against such other person as well as against the person
who makes such confession.

Explanation: Offence as used in this section, includes the abetment of, or

attempt to commit the offence.

Illustrations:
a) A and B are jointly tried for the murder of C. It is proved that A said, B
and I murdered C\ The Court may consider the effect of this confession as
against B.

b) A is on his trial for the murder of C. There is evidence to show that C was
murdered by A and 3, and that B said - A and I murdered C\ This
statement may not be taken into consideration by the Court against A, as
B is not being jointly tried.

Admissions not conclusive proof, but may estop (Section 31)

Admissions are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted, but they may
operate as estoppels under the provisions hereinafter contained.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ADMISSION AND CONFESSIONS
ADMISSION --------------------CONFESSION