The distinction between section 25, 26 and 27 of the Evidence Act –

(i) Section 27 of the Evidence Act, is founded on the principle that even though the evidence relating to confessional or other statements made by a person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer, is tainted and therefore inadmissible, if the truth of the information given by him is assured by the discovery of a fact, it may be presumed to be untainted and is therefore declared provable in so far as it distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered.

(ii) Even though section 27 of the Evidence Act, is in form of a proviso to section 26 of the Act, the two sections do not necessarily deal with evidence of the same character.

(iii) Section 27 of the Evidence Act, is in the form of a proviso to section 26 of the Act, the two sections necessarily deal with evidence of the same character.

(iv) The ban imposed by section 25 of the Evidence Act, is against the proof of confessional statements.

(v) Section 27 of the Act, is concerned with the proof of information whether it amounts to a confession or not, which leads to discovery in consequence of information received, only that much of the information is admissible as distinctly relates to the fact discovered.

(vi) By section 26 of the Evidence Act, a confession made in the presence of a Magistrate is made provable in its entirely. 

(vii) By section 26 of the Evidence Act, a confession made in the presence of a Magistrate is made not provable in its entirely.

Select the right statements:–