GUWAHATI: In a pivotal ruling on January 3, the Supreme Court of India reiterated and clarified the conditions for invoking Section 27 of the Evidence Act, emphasising the significance of the discovery of a fact.
The judgment, delivered by the bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and S.V.N. Bhatti, drew upon the precedent set by the case of Mohmed Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra (1976) 1 SCC 828.
The three conditions reaffirmed by the Court are as follows:
1. Discovery of a Fact: The fact must be relevant, stemming from information received from an accused person.
2. Deposition of the Fact: The discovery of the fact must be deposed to, excluding facts already known to the police.
3. Accused in Police Custody: At the time of receiving the information, the accused must be in police custody, which the Court clarified includes any form of restraint or surveillance by the police.
The Court emphasised that only "so much of the information" as relates distinctly to the discovered fact is admissible, with the term 'distinctly' implying direct, indubitable, strict, or unmistakable relevance.
The judgment clarified that the discovery of a fact includes the accused person's knowledge, distinct from merely equating it to the physical object found.
Additionally, the Court delved into the interpretation of the term 'custody' in Section 27, stating that it extends beyond formal custody and encompasses any kind of restriction, restraint, or surveillance by the police.
The case in question involved a criminal appeal filed by the appellant, Perumal, convicted for the murder of Rajini alias Rajinikanth. Perumal, already detained in connection with another murder case, made a disclosure statement regarding Rajinikanth's murder, leading the police to recover parts of the deceased.
The Trial Court convicted Perumal under Section 302 of the IPC, a decision affirmed by the High Court. The Supreme Court, after examining the case, upheld the conviction, emphasising that the judgment of acquittal lacked relevant evidentiary value to exonerate the appellant.