Is a disclosure statement admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 where the spot identified was already known to the police?

No. A confession made to a police officer is not admissible except in terms of Section 27, which allows so much of the information received from an accused as relates distinctly to a fact thereby discovered to be proved. Here no new fact was discovered — no incriminating article was recovered pursuant to the alleged disclosure statement, and the identification of the spot was merely an identification of an area already known to the police, of which a site plan had been prepared two days earlier. The disclosure statement could not be taken into consideration.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.302 — s.201 — s.377 — Evidence Act, 1872 — s.27 — Circumstantial evidence — Last seen together — Extra judicial confession — Disclosure statement — Benefit of doubt — Evidence Act, 1872 — Extra judicial confession — Weak piece of evidence — Corroboration essential — Held: An extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and per se, without independent and cogent corroborative circumstance or evidence, cannot be made the sole basis for conviction. One suffering from material discrepancies or inherent improbabilities is ruled out of consideration. (¶43) Evidence Act, 1872 — s.27 — Disclosure statement — Identification of an area already known to the police — Held further: Section 27 admits so much of the information as relates distinctly to a fact thereby discovered. Where no incriminating article is recovered and the accused identifies an area already known to the police, no reliance can be placed on the disclosure statement. (¶38, 40) Circumstantial evidence — Last seen together — Suggestion in cross-examination cannot supply the link — Held further: A suggestion given by defense counsel in cross-examination cannot establish the factum of the deceased accompanying the accused where the witnesses omitted it in examination-in-chief; the theory of last seen is then not borne out. (¶42) Evidence Act, 1872 — Forensic report — Onus lies on the prosecution — Benefit of doubt — On facts, held: Where no DNA test links the semen on the accused's underwear with that on the rectal swab, the onus cannot be shifted to the accused to establish that there was no connection. Appeal allowed; conviction set aside on benefit of doubt. (¶45, 50)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of Sahab Singh alias Sat Pal v. State of Haryana — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India