This section is a legal requirement for judges presiding over criminal trials. It is based on the theory that if the finding of a fact corroborates an accused person’s confession or statement, it is more likely than not true. (1) when certain facts are inferred to have been discovered as a result of information obtained from an accused person detained by the police, and (2) If the information relates to the fact acquired.
Constitutional Relation
Since all laws and provisions, whether they date from before or after the Indian Constitution, were derived from it and were under its provisions, in a similar manner in Section 27 of IEA is pari materia to Article 20(3) of the Indian constitution, Article 20 (3) of the Constitution reads as “No person accused of an offense shall be compelled to be a witness against himself”
Article 20 (3) of the Constitution embodies the idea of protection against being forced to incriminate oneself. The protection provided by that provision includes any forced testimony previously obtained from him. The information that the accused provided to the police was unquestionably testimony that had already been obtained from him and was intended for use in a court of law. Article 20 (3) forbids the use of the material in court if it is forced testimony rather than voluntary information. They must be excluded from evidence as of Article 20 (3) passage because if they were included, the accused would be forced to testify against himself. The Constitution’s Article 20 (3) limits the use of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, and as a result, the discoveries that result from a confession obtained under duress cannot be utilized against the person who confessed.
Judicial Point of View (Pulukuri Kottaya V King Emperor)
Condition necessary for applicability of Section 27 of IEA.
- The discovery of a fact must be in consequence of information from a person accused of an offense.
- The discovery of such a fact must be deposed.
The accused must be in police custody at the time of receiving the information.
Recovery Of A Weapon From An Open Place Accessible To All Not Reliable
The court recently held that the incriminatory object, when discovered in places accessible to public , cannot be solely relied upon to established the guilt of the accused . It is pertinent to note that for admissibility under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act , the fact discovered must be direct consequence of a information received from a person in custody.
Conclusion
From the aforementioned, it is clear that section 27 of this code is not very beautifully crafted, but it has been very carefully shaped with the application of our Constitution and then by our Supreme courts as well as High courts of various states. Section 27 guarantees the liberty of the accused, and the law commission observations are there to further transform this section so that it can withstand the test of time and society.
Written By Adv Rohit Yadav