Question: The accused, while in police custody, told the police that the ear tops and bangles which the deceased was wearing was taken-off from her body by him and is kept in his house. The same was actually recovered from his house through his help. Discuss which part of the statement is admissible in evidence. [Bihar J.S. 1978]… Read More »

Question: The accused, while in police custody, told the police that the ear tops and bangles which the deceased was wearing was taken-off from her body by him and is kept in his house. The same was actually recovered from his house through his help. Discuss which part of the statement is admissible in evidence. [Bihar J.S. 1978] Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [The accused, while in police custody, told the police that the ear tops and bangles which the deceased...

Question: The accused, while in police custody, told the police that the ear tops and bangles which the deceased was wearing was taken-off from her body by him and is kept in his house. The same was actually recovered from his house through his help. Discuss which part of the statement is admissible in evidence. [Bihar J.S. 1978]

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [The accused, while in police custody, told the police that the ear tops and bangles which the deceased was wearing was taken-off from her body by him and is kept in his house. The same was actually recovered from his house through his help. Discuss which part of the statement is admissible in evidence.]

Answer

Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act lays down the provision that when at the time of trial, evidence given by the accused has led to the effect that some fact was discovered in consequence of the information received from the accused of an offence while he is in the custody of the police, then so much of the information as relates to the facts discovered by that information, may be proved irrespective of the facts discovered by that information, whether that amounts to a confession or not.

The essential requirements to satisfy the applicability of section 27 are as follow:

  1. The fact must have been discovered in the consequence of the information received from the accused.
  2. The person giving the information must be accused of an offence.
  3. He must be in the custody of a police officer.
  4. That portion only of the information which relates distinctly to the fact discovered can be proved. The rest is inadmissible.
  5. Before the statement is proved, somebody must depose that articles were discovered in consequence of the information received from the accused. For instance, before the statement of the accused could be proved, somebody, such as a sub-inspector, must depose that in consequence of the given information given by the accused, some facts were discovered.
  6. The fact discovered must be a relevant fact distinct to the offence, that is to say, it must relate to the commission of the crime in question.

In Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar, it is the discovery and the seizure of articles used in wrapping the dead body and the pieces of Sari belonging to the deceased was made at the instance of one accused. Articles recovered were neither visible nor accessible to the people but were hidden under the ground.

No public witness was examined by the prosecution on this behalf. However, the evidence of the Investigation Officer did not suffer from any doubt or infirmity. Articles discovered were duly identified by the witness. It was held that in these circumstances, the failure of Investigating Officer to record the disclosure of the statement was not fatal.

Therefore, in the present case at hand, when the accused, while in police custody, told the police that the ear tops and bangles which the deceased was wearing was taken-off from her body by him and is kept in his house. The same was actually recovered from his house through his help.

Only that part of the statement of the accused that he removed accessories of the deceased and kept them in his house is admissible in evidence. This statement doesn’t point towards the guilt of the accused and hence can be used only as an admission relevant under section 21 of the Evidence act.


Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

  1. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-I
  2. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-II
  3. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-III
  4. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-IV
  5. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-V
  6. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VI
  7. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VII
  8. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VIII
  9. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-IX
  10. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-X
Updated On 2021-11-09T10:24:54+05:30
Admin LB

Admin LB

Next Story