Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta held that the circumstance regarding the identification of place of incident is inadmissible because the crime scene was already known to the police.       

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Allarakha Habib Memon v. Sate of Gujarat. 

What is the Background of Allarakhna Habib Memon v. State of Gujarat Case? 

• There was some issue regarding the supply of water in the locality where the accused was residing. 
• On the basis of this issue an altercation flared up between the accused and the victim. 
• The accused persons entered into a conspiracy and acting in it’s furtherance assaulted the victim with sharp edged weapons, causing injuries on his head and chest. 
• On the basis of the above First Information Report (FIR) was filed by the first informant.  
• The trial Court convicted the accused under Section 302 read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 
• The appeal was filed in the Supreme Court against the order of the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court.

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The issue before the Court was whether the accused persons should be liable under Section 302 read with Section 120B of IPC. 
• The Court firstly, pointed towards the inconsistencies between the several statements made by the witnesses. 
• Apart from that, heavy reliance was made by the prosecution on confessions made by the accused to the Medical Officer. 
  • With regard to the confession made to the medical officer the Court held that the accused person was presented at the hospital by the police officer after being arrested thus, the statement would be hit by Section 26 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA)    
• Further, the prosecution also relied on the disclosure made under Section 27 of IEA. This was also not accepted by the Court. 
  • The Court held that the place of incident was already known to the accused therefore the disclosure is irrelevant.   
• Resultantly, the Court in this case acquitted the accused by giving them the benefit of doubt.

What is a Disclosure Statement? 

• About: 
  • Disclosure Statement is provided for under Section 27 of 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; and 
    • The knowledge of the accused as to this.
• The presence of Witnesses Necessary while Making Disclosure Statements:  
  • In the case of State of Himachal Pradseh v. Jeet Singh (1999) the Supreme Court held that it is not necessary that the witnesses should be present at the time discovery statement is made. 
  • This was reiterated in the case of Mohd. Arif v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2011).
• What part of the statement of Disclosure Statement is admissible? 
  • This aspect was explained by the Privy Council in the case of Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor (1947). 
  • The Court held that if the statement is “I will produce a knife concealed in the roof of my house with which I stabbed A”. 
  • Here, the Court held that the words “I will produce the knife concealed in the roof of my house” will fall under Section 27. However, the words “with which I stabbed A” is not admissible since they do not relate to the discovery. 
  • Therefore, the information should relate “distinctly to the fact thereby discovered”.
• Custody under Section 27:  
  • This point was recently discussed in the case of Perumal Raja @ Perumal v. State Rep. By the Inspector of Police (2023). 
  • The Court in this case held that the word “custody” under Section 27 does not mean formal custody. It includes any kind of restraint, restriction or even surveillance by the police. 
  • Even if the accused was not formally arrested at the time of giving information the accused ought to be deemed for all practical purposes in the custody of police. 
  • Further, in the case of State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya (1961) the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court has held that for the ban to be effective the accused need not have been accused of an offence when he made the confession.
• Will the Discovery Statement become Inadmissible if the Police already knew where the Objects were Hidden? 
  • In the case of Jaffar Hussain Dastagir v. State of Maharashtra (1934), the Supreme Court by a three-judge bench held that if the police had knowledge about the place of concealment otherwise than through accused there is no discovery of fact.
• Can Disclosure Statement be made the Sole Basis of Conviction? 
  • In the case of Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2023), the Supreme Court held that disclosure statement is a significant contributing factor for conviction, but it cannot be the sole basis of conviction.

Comparison between Section 27 of IEA and Section 23 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA)?

• It is to be noted that Section 23 of Bharatiya Sakshaya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), is an amalgamation of Section 25, Section 26 and Section 27 of IEA. 
• Section 27 of IEA can now be seen as a Proviso to Section 23 (2) of BSA. 
• It is to be noted that there are no changes made in this regard in BSA.