Discuss the scope of expression ‘discover’ under Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872....help of judicial decisions.

Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides an exception to the rule that confessions made to the police are not admissible in evidence. It allows for the admissibility of information given by an accused while in police custody, but only to the extent that it leads to the discovery of a fact. The word “discover” in this context has been the subject of judicial interpretation to delineate its exact scope and application.

The term discover in Section 27 implies that there must be a tangible and direct connection between the information provided by the accused and the subsequent finding of a fact or object. The essential elements for a valid discovery under this section include:

1. The person must be in police custody at the time of making the statement.
2. The statement must relate distinctly to a fact discovered (i.e., it should lead to something new that was previously unknown to the investigating agency).
3. The fact discovered must be relevant to the case, such as the recovery of a weapon, stolen goods, or dead body.
4. The discovery should be consequential to the statement, meaning the police must not have prior knowledge of the recovered object or place.

Judicial Interpretation of ‘Discover’

1. Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67

• This landmark case clarified that only the part of the statement that distinctly leads to the discovery of a fact is admissible under Section 27.
• The Privy Council held that a statement like “I killed the man and buried the knife” is inadmissible in its entirety; however, the part “I buried the knife at a particular place” is admissible if the knife is recovered accordingly.

2. State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya, AIR 1960 SC 1125

• The Supreme Court ruled that mere knowledge or previous awareness of a fact by the police does not exclude a subsequent discovery if it is based on the accused’s statement.
• However, the fact must be independent and novel to be admissible.

3. Mohd. Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra, (1976) 1 SCC 828

• The Supreme Court reiterated that the word “discover” means something more than mere knowledge of the existence of an object.
• It held that if an object is already known to the police and the accused merely confirms its existence, it does not amount to discovery.
• However, if the accused provides a new fact that results in the recovery of the object, it becomes admissible under Section 27.

4. Anter Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2004) 10 SCC 657

• This case reaffirmed that discovery must be a direct outcome of the information provided by the accused.
• It also held that the place of discovery should not be known to the police previously.

5. Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 1 SCC 253

• The Supreme Court held that even a small clue leading to the discovery of evidence is sufficient to bring the case under the ambit of Section 27.
• The decision emphasized that discovery does not require the accused to physically lead the police to the object; a verbal disclosure that results in recovery is sufficient.

The judicial interpretation of the word discover under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, makes it clear that only that portion of a statement which leads to new and relevant facts is admissible. Courts have consistently emphasized that mere knowledge does not equate to discovery; rather, the information provided by the accused must result in tangible and new findings related to the case.

Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams