BODH RAJ @ BODHA AND ORS V. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR (2002) 7 SCC 334
- Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 that deals with “How much of information received from accused may be proved” is nothing but a proviso to Section 25 and 26 of the Act, as has been observed by the Supreme Court of India in this case. The issue before the Apex Court in this present case has been whether the weapon used to assault that has been discovered on the reliance of the information provided by the accused in custody, be sufficient enough to fasten the guilt of the accused or not. The pronouncements made by the Court have been listed below.
-
The object underlying Section 27 has been to allow certain parts of the accused statements made to the police officer to be admissible before the court as evidence whether or not such statements are confessional or non-confessional. The Court went further to state that the ban that has been imposed by Sections 25, and 26 of the Act of 1872 would stand defeated if the accused statements are related to the discovery of facts.
- It is necessary for the benefit of both the prosecution and the accused that the statements of the latter made in the custody, which is admissible under Section 27 must be proved andrecorded in order to uphold the Doctrine of Confirmation which forms the essence of this provision.
- Recovery of an object and discovery of facts as explained under Section 27 are two completely different things.
- How much information by the accused will be admissible before the court of law under Section 27 depends completely upon the nature of the fact discovered in relation to such information.
-->
