For the applicability of section 27 of the Evidence Act -

(i) The information must be such as has caused discovery of the fact.

(ii) The information must ‘relate distinctly’ to the fact discovered.

(iii) Where recovery and seizure of articles was made in pursuance of the statement of accused, mere absence of attestation by the independent witness is not a ground to discard the seizure evidence under section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872.

(iv) Unless a fact is discovered on the basis of information given by a police, no information given by an accused would be regarded as discovery evidence.

(v) Section 27 of the Act, is a proviso to section 26 of the Act and makes admissible so much of the statement of the accused which leads to the discovery of a fact deposed to by him and connected with the crime, irrespective of the question whether it is confessional or otherwise.

(vi) The statement of the accused persons leading to discovery of fact are clearly admissible as per the provisions contained in section 27 of the Evidence Act, which carves out an exception to the general provisions about inadmissibility of  confession made under police custody contained in section 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act.

(vii) With regard to section 27 of the Act, what is important is discovery of the material object at the disclosure of the accused but such disclosure alone would not automatically lead to the conclusion that the offence was also committed by the accused.

(viii) The expression ‘fact discovered’ includes only physical object produced and not the place from which it is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this. 

(ix) There must be a discovery of fact albeit relevant fact in consequence of the information received from a person witness of an offence.

(x) It it correct to say that section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and section 162, subsection (2) of the Crpc, in so far as ‘that section relates to section 27 Indian Evidence Act’ are void as offending Article 14 of the Constitution.

(xi) If the self-incriminatory information has been given by an accused person without any threat, that will be admissible in evidence and what will not be hit by the provisions of clause (3) of Article 20 of the Constitution for the reason that there has been no compulsion.

(xii) Where the accused in compelled to give information it will be an infringement of Article 20(3) of the constitution, but there is no such infringement where he gives the information without any compulsion.

(xiii) The word ‘fact’ means some concrete or material facts to which the information directly relates.

(xiv) To invoke section 27 Evidence Act, incriminating article should be concealed so as to evade public gaze.

(xv) The word ‘distinctly’ means ‘directly’, ‘indubitably’, ‘strictly’, ‘unmistakably’. The word has been advisedly used to limit and define the scope of the provable information. The phrase ‘distinctly’ relates to the fact thereby discovered is the linchpin of the provision. This phrase refers to that of the information supplied by the accused which is the direct and immediate of the discovery. The reason behind this partial lifting of the ban against confessions and statements made to the police, is that affords some guarantee of truth of that part, and that part only, of the information which was the clear, immediate the proximate cause of the discovery. No such guarantee or assurance attaches to the rest of the statement which may be indirectly or remotely related to the fact discovery.

Select the right statements -