Pranav B Prem

In the case Varkey vs. State of Kerala (Crl.A. No. 449 of 2018), the Kerala High Court delivered a crucial verdict clarifying the scope and application of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The court emphasized that for the applicability of Section 27, information must be received from an accused in the custody of a police officer, it must lead to the discovery of a fact, and the fact so discovered must be deposed by a competent witness. If these three pre-conditions are fulfilled, then so much of such information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered becomes admissible in evidence, notwithstanding that it emanates from a confession to the police officer.

"...For the applicability of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, the following requirements are to be fulfilled:

(i)   An information should have been received from an accused in the custody of a police officer.
(ii)  The above information should have led to the discovery of a fact.
(iii) The fact so discovered should have been deposed by the competent witness.

If the above three pre-conditions are fulfilled, then so much of such information as it relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered will become admissible in evidence, notwithstanding the fact that it came out of a confession to the police officer."

Facts of the Case

The case arose from a conflict between two neighbors over the use of a water spout for irrigation. On January 14, 2016, the appellant, aged 74, had an altercation with the deceased over water diversion rights. The dispute escalated, and the accused allegedly struck the deceased on the head with the handle of a spade, causing him to fall into a drainage pit. The deceased sustained fatal skull injuries and was declared dead upon arrival at the hospital. The accused was arrested the following day, and during custodial interrogation, he disclosed the location of the spade used in the alleged crime. The prosecution relied on the recovery of the spade as a critical piece of evidence.

Court’s Findings

The High Court analyzed the evidentiary value of the recovered spade under Section 27 of the Evidence Act:

1. The court highlighted that the mere recovery of a weapon based on the accused's disclosure does not prove the crime unless corroborated by other evidence linking the weapon to the offense. The forensic examination revealed no traces of blood on the spade, rendering the recovery inconclusive.
2. The court observed procedural lapses in the recovery process, emphasizing the need for independent witnesses and precise documentation during the recovery to ensure the admissibility of evidence.
3. The court reiterated that Section 27 applies only to information that distinctly leads to the discovery of a fact, such as the location of an object, and not to the broader confessional aspects of a statement.

Verdict