January 18, 2024

The Indian Evidence Act does not define or use the term “confession,” although this is unknown; yet, Section 17 of the Act’s justification under the concept of admission also applies to confession. Section 17 specifically specifies that any statement either oral or in the form of a documentary that put forward for the purpose of consideration of any conclusion to the fact in dispute or to the relevant facts.

Admissions made in criminal situations are explicitly referred to as confessions. They require admitting guilt or a significant admission of facts that support guilt. Co-accused parties must abide with confessions, which are usually against the confessing party’s best interests. These have a greater evidentiary value and are typically regarded as adequate evidence of the accused’s guilt.

section 27 indian evidence act explained

  • Within its legal framework, the admissibility of confessions is a fascinating and intricate characteristic that is highlighted by Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
  • By permitting the admission of confessions that lead to the discovery of facts, Section 27 creates an additional exemption.
  • section 27 of evidence act applies to any fact that is deposed to as having been discovered as a result of information obtained from an individual who is being held by the police and is accused of committing any crime, may be proven to the extent that such information, whether or not it amounts to a confession, directly relates to the fact that has been discovered.
  • In simple terms, any confession provided by a person while they are in police custody that contributes to the exposure of a fact is deemed admissible in court.
  • The idea of confirmation by future events is the fundamental concept enshrined in section 27 of Indian evidence act. This theory is based on the idea that in order for a statement made by the accused while they are in police custody to be admitted into evidence in court, it must be verified in whole by later events of discovery.

section 27 of indian evidence act: Essential Ingredients

  • The confession ought to be free from coercion, threats, promises, etc.
  • Such a confession ought to come from someone in a position of power.
  • It ought to be connected to the specific fee.
  • It ought to have either a temporal nature advantage or disadvantage.

section 27 of indian evidence act: Requirements for Application

  • The fact had to have come to light as a result of the accused’s information.
  • The information provider needs to be the defendant in the case.
  • He needs to be under a police officer’s custody.
  • Only the part that clearly connects to the pertinent fact and is found later can be proven.
  • The information found needs to be connected to the offense that was done.

When Does a Confession not have any Significance?

According to Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, a confession given by someone who is facing criminal charges is not relevant:

  • If a confession is the result of coercion, threats, or promises, and if a person in a position of authority, such as the police, a magistrate, a court, etc., has handled such cases.
  • If any inducement, threat, or promise made should be related to the allegation of any offense and should have a time-sensitive advantage.

section 27 of indian evidence act latest judgment

Two essential conditions have been emphasized by the Supreme Court of India for a confession made to the police to be accepted under Section 27 of the Evidence Act: the confession maker must be “accused of any offense” and be in “police custody” at the time of the confession.

  • In the case of Asar Mohd. v State of UP, the Supreme Court ruled that in addition to physical items, crucial psychological or psychological facts that can be considered directly relevant to the case fall under the definition of “fact” as stated in Section 27.

The Supreme Court recently declared that for admissibility under the virtue of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the fact revealed must be a direct consequence of information obtained from a person in custody.

  • In the case of Mohan Lal v Ajit Singh, after being arrested, the accused disclosed the whereabouts of stolen goods, which were located in less than six days. Based on the evidence gathered, the accused was found guilty of robbery and murder after the court considered this statement to be important.

Section 27 clarifies the idea of the applicability of information obtained from the accused through unrelated confessions given to the police or while they are in their custody, which could aid in the subsequent investigation of case facts. According to Section 27, any fact that is forcefully uncovered when gathering information from an accused person for a police inquiry or while the person is in police custody, as well as any information that leads to the discovery of further pertinent facts, may be conclusively proven.

Leave a Comment