Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act carves out a well-known exception to the general rule that confessions made to police are inadmissible. The Supreme Court in Mehboob Ali v. State of Rajasthan, 2015 SCC OnLine SC 1043, explained that when information supplied by an accused leads to the discovery of a new fact previously unknown to the police, that part of the statement becomes admissible in evidence. Significantly, the Court held that such discovery may also include the involvement and arrest of a co-accused.
In this case, accused Mehboob Ali and Firoz furnished information to the police that led to the identification and arrest of another accused, Anju Ali. Before these disclosure statements, the police had no knowledge that Anju Ali was involved in dealing with forged currency notes. Acting on the information given by the first two accused, the police traced Anju Ali, arrested him, and recovered fake currency notes from his possession. The disclosures thus helped unearth the larger counterfeit currency racket.
The Supreme Court reiterated the settled principle governing Section 27: only that portion of the statement is admissible which distinctly relates to the fact discovered. In other words, the admissible part is limited to the immediate cause of discovery, and not the entire confessional narrative. If the statement leads to something new being found or a fact being uncovered which was not already within police knowledge, that limited part becomes legal evidence.
Applying this test, the Court found that the involvement of Anju Ali was itself a discovered fact. His identity, role, and connection with fake currency were not previously known to the investigating agency. Therefore, the information supplied by Mehboob Ali and Firoz, to the extent it led to the discovery of Anju Ali’s complicity and the consequent recovery of forged notes from him, was admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
The decision is important because it clarifies that “discovery of fact” under Section 27 is not confined only to the recovery of a physical object. It may also extend to the discovery of a relevant fact such as the identity and involvement of another accused, provided such fact was unknown to the police earlier and is directly discovered because of the information given.
The Court ultimately upheld the chain of circumstances showing conspiracy among the accused and approved the findings of the trial court and the High Court. The ruling reinforces that where a disclosure statement becomes the immediate and direct cause of discovering a fresh incriminating fact, the statutory bar against police confessions stands lifted to that limited extent.
Key takeaway
The ratio of the judgment is clear: a statement made by an accused is admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act if it leads to the discovery of a fact previously unknown to the police, even where that discovery establishes the complicity of another accused person.