SECTION 25
No confession made to a police officer, shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.
SECTION 26
No confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person.
R. v. Lester
the accused was being taken in a tonga by a police constable. In the
absence of constable, the accused confessed to the tanga-driver that he had committed the crime. The confession was held to be in police custody as the accused was in the custody of constable and it made no difference of his temporary absence.
Ariel v. State of MP
The appellant demanded a bribe of Rs. 500. A trap was arranged and it was decided that the appellant should be invited at Bedia Bungalow. And he was so invited. After the tea while
the appellant emerged from the Bedia Bungalow, he was followed by a first class Magistrate, the Assistant District Magistrate and the Sub-Inspector.
Inspector called out to him to stop. And on coming up to him told him that he was going to be searched because he had accepted an illegal gratification. The appellant begged to be saved and implored for kindness, as he was a family man with children.
It was held, “if these alleged
statements are to be regarded as confessions they will be hit by Section 25, Evidence Act, for they were made to Pandey, the police officer, who was there. If they are sought to be brought in under Section 26 as confessions made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate then also they will not be admissible in evidence in that they were not recorded by the Magistrate in the manner prescribed by Section 164, Criminal Procedure Code.
Kashi Ram v. Emperor,
SECTION 27 : - The fact discovered must be a relevant fact
Where the accused produced gandasa from a pond and the gandasa was not blood stained and was not proved to have been
connected with the crime, it was held that the statement was not admissible.
SECTION 27
Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.
Misri v. King-Emperor
M, a woman was charged with the murder of a girl. On the hope of pardon being given to her, she took the police to a place and pointed out and produced certain ornaments which
the deceased was wearing at the time of her death. Now this confession was taken from the accused by promising pardon to her and is clearly excluded by Section 24 if, that section is
not controlled by Section 27. Their Lordships of the Allahabad High Court held that the statement leading to discovery of ornaments was admissible.
Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra,
The accused stated, “I will tell the place of deposits of the three chemical drums
which I took out from the Haji Bunder on 1st August.” The only portion relevant is “I will tell the place of deposit of the three chemical drums.
The test FOR SEC 27
Was the fact discovered by reason of the information and how much of the information was the immediate cause of the fact discovered and as such a
relevant fact.
Kottayya v. Emperor
An accused stated to the Sub-Inspector that “I stabbed Sivayya with a spear, I hid the spear in the yard of my village. I will show you the place.” The first sentence of this statement, i.e., “I stabbed Sivayya with a spear” must be omitted and cannot be
proved. The sentence “I hid the spear in a yard of my village, I will show you the
place” will be proved as on this information spear was recovered.
Only that part is to be proved which leads to the discovery. The part of
the statement which has nothing to do with the discovery of the fact but relates to the manner of the committal of the crime, to the part taken by the accused person in it, to
the place of occurrence etc., will not be proved.
Information by two or more accused for discovery
It may happen that two or more persons may be accused in a criminal case. Anyone of the accused may give information in consequence of which a fact may be discovered. The other accused may also give like information. In such cases the statement made by the first person under Section 27 may be treated as evidence against him but it is not allowable to treat it the evidence against the other persons who have afterwards made the statement of the same description as has been done by the first accused.
