Recoveries under Section 27 of IEA

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

The Supreme Court, in Shaik Shabuddin v. State of Telangana (2025), held that articles recovered from the accused during a personal search cannot be classified as discoveries under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA).  

• The Court clarified that Section 27 applies only when the accused has concealed an object and its discovery is a direct result of disclosure.

What Was the Background of Shaik Shabuddin v. State of Telangana (2025) Case? 

• The case stemmed from the killing of a woman, after being dropped near a village by her husband one morning, she went missing and could not be contacted.  
• Her body was found the next day in bushes along a nearby road.  
• The prosecution alleged that three accused followed her, raped her in an isolated area, and slit her throat to eliminate evidence.  
• They were charged under Sections 302 and 376D read with Section 34 IPC, along with provisions of the SC/ST Act.   
• They were convicted under Sections 302 and 376D read with Section 34 IPC, along with provisions of the SC/ST Act. 
•  The trial court awarded death penalty, which the High Court converted to life imprisonment without remission, relying significantly on alleged confessional statements, and supposed Section 27 recoveries. 
• The Supreme Court was called upon to evaluate whether such recoveries and disclosures were legally valid.

What were the Court's Observations?

• The Court held that the materials “recovered” were already in the possession of the accused at the time of arrest. 
•  These were handed over during a routine personal check, not discovered from any concealed location. 
• Therefore, Section 27 did not apply because: 
  • There was no prior concealment. 
  • Discovery was not a consequence of disclosure.
• The Court observed that “There was no concealment as such… on an arrest, when the material objects could have been seized from the body of the accused on a mere search by the police, the attempt to convert it into a recovery under Section 27 cannot at all be accepted.” 
• While upholding the conviction, the Court modified the sentence from life imprisonment without remission to 25 years' imprisonment without remission. 

What is Section 27 of IEA? 

About: 

• Section 27 of the IEA created a limited exception to the rule that confessions made to police are inadmissible. 
• It permitted only that portion of an accused’s statement to be proved which distinctly relates to a fact discovered as a result of the information given. 

Key Provisions of Section 27 of IEA: 

• Applies only when the accused is in police custody. 
• Permits proving only that part of the information which directly leads to the discovery of a relevant fact (e.g., a weapon, stolen property). 
• The rationale is that discovery lends credibility to that part of the statement. 

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 a discovery of fact. The facts should be relevant as a 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 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. 
  • The knowledge of the accused as to this.

Provision in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023: 

• The content of IEA Section 27 is now included as a proviso to Section 23 of the BSA (Confessions to Police). 
• This proviso keeps the same rule: 
  Only the part of the accused’s statement that directly leads to discovery is admissible.