Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Perumal Raja @ Perumal v. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, restated the conditions for the purpose of invoking the provisions of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA).

What is the Background of Perumal Raja @ Perumal v. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police Case?

• In this case, the appellant Perumal Raja @ Perumal, along with other co-accused, had committed the murder of Rajini @ Rajinikanth. His dead body was thrown in the sump tank in his house.
• The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) whereas other co-accused were acquitted.
• Thereafter, the judgment of the Trial Court was upheld by the High Court of Judicature at Madras.
• Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.
• Dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and S.V.N. Bhatti clarified that discovery of fact also includes knowledge of the accused person. Thus, this fact discovery cannot be just equated to the object found.
• The Court relied on the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in the case of Mohmed Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra (1976) elucidating Section 27 of the IEA.
  • It has been held that the first condition imposed and necessary for bringing the section into operation is the discovery of a fact which should be a relevant fact in consequence of information received from a person accused of an offence.
  • The second is that the discovery of such a fact must be deposed to. A fact already known to the police will fall foul and not meet this condition.
  • The third is that at the time of receipt of the information, the accused must be in police custody.
  • Lastly, it is only so much information which relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered resulting in recovery of a physical object which is admissible.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Section 27, IEA

About:

• This section deals with how much information received from accused may be proved.
• It states that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police-officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.
• 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.

Case Laws

• In State of NCT of Delhi v. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru (2005), the Supreme Court affirmed that the fact discovered within the meaning of Section 27 of the IEA must be some concrete fact to which the information directly relates.
• In Rajesh & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023), the Supreme Court held that formal accusation and formal police custody are essential pre-requisites under Section 27 of the IEA.

Section 201, IPC

• This section deals with the disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to screen offender.
• It states that whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false.
• If the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
• If punishable with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, it shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
• If the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both.