Indian Evidence Act

Introduction

The confessional portion of the statement which does not relate to the discovery of facts has to be severed from the portion which related with the discovery of facts.

Facts

• In this case the appellants were charged with murder. The police sub-inspector examined prosecution witnesses, including 4 of the alleged 6 eyewitnesses, and wrote down their statements in his notebook.
• After that their statements were recorded by the Circle Inspector and who wrote down it in the case diary.
• During the Sessions trial, when witness No. 2, who was the principal prosecution witness was examined, he said that he had not been supplied with copies of statements recorded by the sub-inspector and requested the Court to make those statements available to enable him to cross-examine the important prosecution witnesses with reference to the earliest statements.
• There was a breach of the proviso of Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
• The learn session judge directed the public prosecutor to comply with the request by counsel.
• In the opinion of the session judge all the 6 eyewitnesses were hostile to the accused and the story told by them was substantially true. Thus, the session court convicted the accused.
• This decision was upheld by the High Court in appeal.
• This is an appeal filed by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature of Madras. In the appeal, the accused contended their statements were admitted in violation of sections 26 and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA).

Issue Involved

• Whether confession made before police while in custody revealing the discovery of a weapon admissible as evidence against the accused?

Observations

• Justice John Beaumont observed that only a part of confessional statement should be considered which lead to discovery of facts and such discovery should be related with physical object and not a mental fact.
• Thus, the confessional portion of the statement which is not related with the discovery of facts will be inadmissible as evidence.

Conclusion

• The objective behind section 27 of IEA is that it makes a balance between allowing the admission of statement which leads to the discovery of facts and provide safeguard to the accused against coerced confession.