Expression “Fact Discovered” In S.27 Of Evidence Act Also Includes Mental Fact Besides Physical Or Material Fact #indianlaws

The expression “fact discovered” in Section 27 of the Evdence Act is not restricted to a physical or material fact which can be perceived by the senses. It does include a mental fact. The information permitted to be admitted in evidence is confined to that portion of the information which “distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered. But the information to get admissibility need not be so truncated as to make it insensible or incomprehensible. The extent of information admitted should be consistent with understandability.

What is the scope of Section 27 of the Evidence Act was the issue that arose for consideration in the instant appeal before the Supreme Court. The instant appeals pertained to recovery of forged currency notes from arrested accused person, who were convicted for committing offence under sections 489B, 489C read with section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Rajasthan High Court vide its impugned judgment upheld the conviction of Appellants.

It was contended on behalf of the Appellants that the confessional statement of accused persons were recorded under section 27 of Evidence Act is not admissible as they were under the custody of Police. Further no currency notes were recovered from the possession of accused/ Appellants and as such their conviction was illegal.

As per the prosecution, initially one accused (X) was arrested and from his possession forged currency notes were recovered. Later on the basis of his information that the currency notes were handed over to him by two other accused persons (A and B), who unfolded the entire sequence leading to arrest of other accused (C). ‘C’, upon being identified was arrested and forged currency notes were recovered from her possession. ‘C’ later also identified another co-accused (D) from whose possession also fake currency notes were recovered and information supplied by ‘D’ ultimately led to arrest of ‘E’ from whose possession also forged currency notes and semi-printed currency notes were recovered along with instrument of printing fake currency notes.

Section 25 of the Evidence Act provides that no confession made to a Police Officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence. Section 26 provides that no confession made by any person while he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person. Section 27 is in the form of a proviso which lays down how much of information received from accused may be proved.

For application of section 27 of Evidence Act, admissible portion of confessional statement has to be found as to a fact which was the immediate cause of the discovery, only that would be part of legal evidence and not the rest. In a statement if something new is discovered or recovered from the accused which was not in the knowledge of the Police before disclosure statement of the accused is recorded, it is admissible in the evidence. Section 27 of Evidence Act refers when any “fact” is deposed.

The information furnished by the accused persons vide information memos held to be clearly admissible which had led to the identification and arrest of other accused person “C’ from whose possession fake currency notes were recovered. It was on the basis of information ‘A’ and ‘B’ that the fact was discovered by Police as to the involvement of accused ‘C’ which was otherwise not to the knowledge of the Police. Thus the statement of accused ‘A’ and ‘B’ held to be clearly saved by section 27 of the Evidence Act.

The embargo put by section 27 of the Evidence Act was held to be clearly lifted in the instant case as the statement of the accused persons has led to the discovery of fact proving complicity of other accused persons and the entire chain of circumstances was made out that accused acted in conspiracy as was founded by the trial court as well as the High Court.

The expression “fact discovered” in Section 27 is not restricted to a physical or material fact which can be perceived by the senses. It does include a mental fact. The information permitted to be admitted in evidence is confined to that portion of the information which “distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered. But the information to get admissibility need not be so truncated as to make it insensible or incomprehensible. The extent of information admitted should be consistent with understandability. The instant appeals were accordingly dismissed.

[Mehboob Ali & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan]

(SC, 27.10.2015)

Criminal Appeal No. 808 of 2010