Chambers of Ishaan Garg
Ch. No. 217, Western Wing, District & Sessions Court, Tis Hazari, New Delhi, Delhi 110054
+91 8851742417, +91 8800386163
Myth busted- To lift ban on 25/26 IEA
The essential purpose of Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not to render admissible a “confession” in the “disclosure statement” made by an accused to a Police Officer.
Case- Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor AIR 1947
If in a “disclosure statement” there is a “confession" such a “confession” is inadmissible
Result- If the inculpatory part of the “disclosure statement” is so excluded, then what remains is a mere statement to P.O.
👉 Consequence of Statement-
Will not hit the Ban Under section 162(1) Cr.P.C because of 162(2).
What is “whether it amounts to a confession or not”
If confession is excluded then why this language
Answer- Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor AIR 1947
1. Disclosure statement does not constitute gist of offence only a corroborative piece of evidence other need to be proved.
2. BUT if possession” or “concealment” of the incriminating object itself constitutes the gist of the offence disclosure statement” would be admissible notwithstanding the fact that statement amounts to a “confession”
Laws in which when Section 27 Statement amounts to Confession
1. Opium Act, 1978,
2. Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940,
3. Explosives Act, 1884,
4. Explosive Substances Act, 1908,
5. Public Gambling Act, 1867,
6. Gold Control Act, 1968, 7. Narcotic Drugs Act and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Illustration—
Larance says; I have killed Soloman with a Gun and the Gun is placed in the farm house.
1. Confession- Bold Highlighted part
2. Statement of S. 27- Underline.
3. Statement Amounts to confession for S. 25 Arms Act, 1959
Conclusion-
Majority of Cases statement does not Amounts to confession but only when concealement and possesion of object itself consitutues offence then amounts to confession.
