Disclosure Statements Made Outside Police Custody Not Admissible

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

The bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K Vinod Chandran in the case of Rohit Jangde v. The State of Chhattisgarh (2026) acquitted a man convicted of murdering his six-year-old stepdaughter, ruling that a disclosure statement leading to the recovery of evidence is admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) only if the accused was in police custody at the time of making the statement.

What was the Background of Rohit Jangde v. The State of Chhattisgarh (2026) Case? 

• The accused was convicted of the murder of his six-year-old stepdaughter.  
• The prosecution's case relied substantially on a disclosure statement made by the accused that led to the discovery of bone remnants of the deceased. 
• The memorandum under Section 27 was recorded on October 13, 2018, at 10:30 am, while the arrest memo showed that the accused was arrested only at 10:00 pm the same day — nearly twelve hours after the statement was recorded.  
• The accused was released on October 8, 2018, two days before the FIR was lodged. 
• Despite DNA evidence confirming the death of the child, no definitive time of death was established, as the corpus delicti was not recovered.  
• The family and police had been informed that the child had last gone with the accused, yet no complaint regarding the missing child was made for a significant period, and the accused was not questioned during that time. 
• The accused was convicted by the lower court, and the matter came before the Supreme Court on appeal.

What were the Court's Observations? 

On admissibility under Section 27 — Custody as a prerequisite: 

• The bench held that the discovery of the deceased's bone remnants based on the accused's disclosure statements could not be admitted in evidence, as the accused was not in custody while making such disclosure statements.  
• The Court referred to the decision in Durlav Namasudra v. Emperor (1931), which held that information coming from a person not in police custody cannot be brought under Section 27. 

On the meaning of "custody": 

• Though the Court acknowledged that "custody" need not mean formal arrest and could include surveillance or restraint.   
• The gap of over twelve hours between the recording of the memorandum and the formal arrest was determinative. 

On admissibility under Section 8 as conduct evidence: 

• Relying on the precedent in State of A.P. v. Gangula Satya Murthy (1997) the Court held that although a disclosure statement made outside custody falls outside the ambit of Section 27, it can be admissible to show the accused's conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. T 
• he bench, however, underscored that such evidence is weak and cannot, alone, form the basis for a conviction: 

On benefit of doubt and acquittal: 

• The judgment authored by Justice Chandran noted that DNA evidence confirmed the death of the child but did not conclusively link the accused to the crime, especially given the lack of a definite time of death and the long, unexplained delay by the family in reporting the child missing.  
• The appeal was allowed.

What are the Disclosure Statements? 

About: 

• Disclosure Statement is provided under Section 27 of the IEA.   
• This section is based on the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events – a fact is actually discovered as a consequence of the information given, which results in recovery of a physical object.

Section 27 of IEA:

• This is in the form of proviso to other provisions. 
• The fact should be discovered in consequence of information received from the person accused of any offence. 
• The Accused should be in the custody of police. 
• So much information as it relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved. 
• This is irrespective of whether the statement amounts to confession or not.  
• In the case of Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor (1947), Sir John Beaumont held that Section 27 is proviso to only Section 26 of IEA.   
• However, in the recent times in the case of Jafarudheen v. State of Kerela (2022), the Supreme Court has held that Section 27 is an exception to preceding Sections particularly, Section 25 and Section 26.

Requisite Essentials to Invoke Section 27 of IEA:

• This was laid down in the case of Preumal Raja @ Perumal v. State Represented by the Inspector of Police (2023) where the Court held the following:  
  • Firstly, there should be discovery of fact. The facts should be relevant in consequence of information received from the accused person.  
  • Secondly, the discovery of such a fact must be deposed to. This means that the fact should not already be known to the police.  
  • Thirdly, at the time of receipt of information the accused should be in the custody of the police.  
  • Lastly, only so much information as relates distinctly to fact thereby discovered is admissible.  
  • This words fact discovered would include the following:   
  • The “place” from where the object is produced. 
  • The knowledge of the accused as to this.

Which Provision of BharatiyaSakshyaAdhiniyam, 2023 Provide for Disclosure Statement? 

• It can be found as proviso to Section 23 (2) of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA). 
• Section 23 (2) provides: 
  • No confession made by any person while he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate shall be proved against him. 
  • 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 discovered, may be proved.

What are Important Case Laws on Section 27 of IEA? 

• Mohmed Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra (1976): 
  • It has been held that the first condition imposed and necessary for bringing the section into operation is the discovery of a fact which should be a relevant fact in consequence of information received from a person accused of an offence. 
  • The second is that the discovery of such a fact must be deposed to. A fact already known to the police will fall foul and not meet this condition. 
  • The third is that at the time of receipt of the information, the accused must be in police custody. 
  • Lastly, it is only so much information which relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered resulting in recovery of a physical object which is admissible.
• Perumal Raja @ Perumal v. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police (2024): 
  • The requisites for invoking Section 27 are as follows: 
    • Firstly, there should be discovery of fact. The facts should be relevant in consequence of information received from the accused person.  
    • Secondly, the discovery of such a fact must be deposed to. This means that the fact should not already be known to the police.  
    • Thirdly, at the time of receipt of information the accused should be in the custody of the police.  
    • Lastly, only so much information as relates distinctly to fact thereby discovered is admissible.
• State of NCT of Delhi v. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru (2005): 
  • The Supreme Court affirmed that the fact discovered within the meaning of Section 27 of the IEA must be some concrete fact to which the information directly relates.