Unlocking the Secrets of Section 27: Supreme Court’s Insights

In a landmark ruling dated January 3, the Supreme Court dissected the intricacies of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, shedding light on the essential conditions for its invocation. Drawing inspiration from the precedent set by Mohmed Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra (1976) 1 SCC 828, the bench, comprised of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and S.V.N. Bhatti, underscored the significance of three crucial conditions inherent in this legal provision.

Firstly, the revelation of a pertinent fact is imperative. This fact should stem directly from information provided by an accused individual. Secondly, the disclosure of such a fact must be testified. Notably, the court emphasized that facts already known to law enforcement would not satisfy this condition. Thirdly, at the time of receiving the information, the accused must be under police custody. The court clarified that this custody extends beyond formal arrest, encompassing any form of restraint or surveillance by the police. The fourth and paramount condition dictates that only the information distinctly relevant to the discovered fact is admissible, with the remainder to be excluded.

“The word ‘distinctly’ is employed to confine and elucidate the information’s scope, meaning ‘directly,’ ‘indubitably,’ ‘strictly,’ or ‘unmistakably.’ Only the part of the information that is clear, immediate, and a proximate cause of discovery is admissible,” elucidated the Court.

Furthermore, the Court clarified that in the present case, the concept of the discovery of a fact includes the accused person’s knowledge. Thus, this discovery cannot be equated solely to the object found. Supporting findings were drawn from precedents like State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru (2005) 11 SCC 600.

However, the Court explicitly stated that Section 27 of the Evidence Act does not equate the discovery of a fact to the object produced or found. It emphasized that the discovery of a fact leading to the recovery of a physical object demonstrates the accused’s knowledge or mental awareness of the object’s existence at a particular place.

Additionally, the Court delved into the interpretation of the term ‘custody’ within this Section, affirming that ‘custody’ extends beyond formal detention, encompassing any form of restriction, restraint, or surveillance by the police.

These insights emerged during the hearing of a criminal appeal filed by the appellant (Perumal), convicted of the murder of Rajini @ Rajinikanth. While detained in connection with another case related to the murder of Rajinikanth’s father, the appellant disclosed information concerning Rajinikanth’s murder. Acting on this disclosure, the police recovered the deceased’s body parts, leading to the appellant’s arrest.

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC for Rajnikanth’s murder, a decision upheld by the High Court. Upon examination, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, emphasizing that the judgment of acquittal lacked relevance and evidentiary value to exonerate the appellant. The case in question is Perumal Raja @ Perumal vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Diary No.- 4802 – 2018.