Copyright infringement not intended

Picture Courtesy: https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/s-27-evidence-act-statement-of-accused-inadmissible-if-no-new-fact-is-discovered-pursuant-to-disclosure-supreme-court-266344

 

Context: The Supreme Court ruled that disclosures under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act are irrelevant if the police already knew the fact.

Indian Evidence Act 1872 ●It was introduced as a standardized system of evidence admissibility in Indian courts. ●It replaced diverse and varied traditional practices with a unified legal framework, ensuring consistency and fairness in legal proceedings. ●On July 1, 2024, the Indian Evidence Act was replaced by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. This new legislation represents a modernized approach to evidence law in India, reflecting contemporary legal standards and practices.

Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872

• Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with the admissibility of statements given by an accused person in custody.
• According to section 27, any fact disclosed by the accused, which discloses additional evidence relating to the crime, may be used as evidence at trial.
• This provision is an exception to the general rule that in the trial of the crime the officers are told not to confess.

Highlights from the Supreme Court decision

Disclosures should provide additional information

• The court emphasized that if a disclosure by an accused under Section 27 is valid and admissible, it must disclose new facts not previously known to the police.
• If the police already knew the facts disclosed by the accused, the disclosure adds no new information to the investigation.

Prior knowledge is important

• In the case in question, the accused had disclosed the crime scene during the investigation. However, the police already knew these details.
• The Supreme Court held that since the fact disclosed by the accused was already known to the police, it did not qualify as additional evidence and therefore irrelevant under Section 27.

Impact on Conviction

• As a result of this decision, the Supreme Court reversed the murder conviction. The court held that the prosecution could not rely on the disclosure of the crime scene by the accused as it was not new information.
• The recent decision highlights the importance of ensuring that the evidence used to convict the accused must be genuinely new and previously unknown to the authorities

Implications of the Ruling

• This judgment has significant implications for criminal investigations and trials in India.
• It reinforces the principle that the burden is on the prosecution to prove that any evidence obtained from an accused under Section 27 must be new and previously unknown.
• The ruling aims to prevent the misuse of confessions or disclosures made under police custody, ensuring that only genuinely new evidence is admissible in court.

Conclusion

• The Supreme Court's ruling on Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act upholds the principle that only new information disclosed by an accused can be used as evidence, thereby safeguarding the rights of individuals and ensuring that justice is delivered based on solid and credible evidence.

Must Read Articles:

Three criminal laws to be effective from July 1

Source:

LIVE LAW

WIKIPEDIA

PRACTICE QUESTION Q. Which of the following statements accurately reflects the scope of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act? A) Section 27 allows the admissibility of any confession made before a police officer. b) Section 27 provides for the admissibility of an impugned disclosure only if it discloses additional evidence not previously known to the police. c) Section 27 allows any disclosure made by the accused irrespective of past knowledge of the police. D) Section 27 does not cover all statements made by the accused while in police custody.   Answer: B