When any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information ndash i The lsquo fact rsquo...........

Indian Evidence Act (IEA) 1872 Relevancy of Facts

When any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information –

i. The ‘fact’ must be a ‘relevant fact’ (Section 5 of the Evidence Act).

ii. The fact said to have been discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of an offence must be of a kind which such information really helps to bring to light and which it would be difficult to find out otherwise before it can be treated as of any substantial probative value.

iii. The fact must be the consequence, and the information the cause of its discovery. The information and the fact should be connected with each other as cause and effect.

iv. The fact discovered must be in consequence of the information received from the victim, and the fact should not have been already within the prior knowledge of the police.

v. The information should be free from any element of compulsion.

vi. In order to utilise the provisions of section 27 of the Evidence Act, against an accused person an ordinary recovery cannot be turned into a discovery.

vii. That portion of the information which merely explains the material thing discovered is admissible under section 27 of the Evidence Act, and can be proved.

viii. Disclosure statement is a substantive evidence to convict the accused person.

ix. The ‘fact discovered’ as envisaged under section 27 of the Evidence Act, embraces the place from where the object was produced, the knowledge of the accused as to it, but the information must relate distinctly to that object.

x. The facts need to be self-probatory and the word ‘fact’ as contemplated in section of the Evidence Act, is limited to ‘actual physical’ material object.

xi. The expression ‘accused of any offence’ is descriptive of the person against whom evidence relating to information alleged to be given by him is made provable by section 27 of the Evidence Act. It does not predicate a formal accusation against him at the time of making the statement sought to be proved, as a condition of its applicability.

xii. Mere recovery of incriminating articles at the instance of the accused is not enough to incriminate the accused unless it is also established that the recovered articles connect the accused with the alleged crime.

Select the correct statements:-

(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi), (vii), (ix), (x)

(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (vii), (viii), (x), (xi), (xii)

(i), (ii), (iii), (v), (vi), (ix), (xi), (xii)

(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi), (vii), (ix), (x), (xi), (xii)

Explanation:

All statements are correct except statements (iv), (vii), (viii), (x).
1. Statement iv – Information received from accused and not from victim. [State (NCT) of Delhi vs. Navjot Sandhu (2005) 11 SCC 660]
2. Statement vii – That portion of information which merely explains the material thing discovered is not admissible and cannot be proved. [HP Administration vs. Om Prakash AIR 1972 SC 975].
3. Statement viii – Not a substantive evidence to convict the accused persons but it is only corroborative evidence.
4. Statement x – The facts need not be self-probatory and the word ‘fact’ as contemplated in section 27 is not limited to ‘actual physical material object’. [Asar Mohammad vs. State of UP, AIR 2018 SC 5264].