Trace Your Case

Category: Section 27

Categories
Section 27

Earabhadrappa Alias Krishnappa v. State of Karnataka AIR 1983 SC 446

EARABHADRAPPA ALIAS KRISHNAPPA V. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Earabhadrappa Alias Krishnappa v. State of Karnataka AIR 1983 SC 446

ISSUE:

  • Whether the statement made by the accused was admissible in evidence by virtue of Section 27 of the Evidence Act?
  • Whether the presumption arising under illustration (a) to s. 114 of the Evidence Act valid?

RULE:

  • For the applicability of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, two conditions are pre-requisite, viz:
  • (1) Information must be such as has caused discovery of the fact, and
  • (2) The information must “relate distinctly” to the fact discovered.”

FACTS:

  • The appellant, Earabhadrappa hailing from village Mattakur, under the false name of Krishnappa and with a false address obtained employment of service as a domestic servant under Makrappa.
  • Makrappa, the husband of the deceased Bachamma, who was found murdered by strangulation on the night after having been robbed of her jewellery, clothes, etc.
  • Based on circumstantial evidence, the appellant, who was found missing right from the early hours and who was apprehended a year later, was charged with and convicted for the offences under Sections 302, 392 IPC respectively.
  • He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 10 years under section 392 IPC and to death under Section 302.
  • In appeal, the Karnataka High Court confirmed both the conviction and sentences imposed upon him. Hence the appeal by special leave was filed.

HELD:

  • The Supreme Court held that to sustain a charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the mere fact that the accused made a statement leading to the discovery of the stolen articles under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, by itself is not sufficient.
  • The court observed that there must be something more to connect the accused with the commission of the offence. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution in the instant case led to no other inference than that of guilt of the accused as murder and robbery are proved. The prosecution had led sufficient evidence to connect the accused with the commission of the crime.
  • For the applicability of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, two conditions are pre-requisite, viz: (1) Information must be such as has caused discovery of the fact, and (2) The information must “relate distinctly” to the fact discovered.”
  • The court emphasized that the nature of presumption under illustration (a) to s. 114 must depend upon the nature of the evidence adduced. No fixed time limit can be laid down to determine whether possession is recent or otherwise and each case must be judged on its own facts.
  • If the stolen articles were such as were not likely to pass readily from hand to hand, the period of one year that elapsed cannot be said to be too long particulary when the appellant had been absconding during that period. There was no lapse of time between the date of his arrest and the recovery of the stolen property.
  • Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal and modified the sentence to imprisonment for life.
Categories
Section 27

Pulukuri Kottaya v. King-Emperor MANU/MH/0125/1946

PULUKURI KOTTAYA V. KING-EMPEROR

Pulukuri Kottaya v. King-Emperor MANU/MH/0125/1946

ISSUE:

  • Whether a confession made before police while in custody revealing the discovery of a weapon admissible as evidence against the accused?

RULE:

  • Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 allows for an exception to the general rule barring confessions made to police officers. It permits the admissibility of statements from an accused if they lead to the “discovery of a fact.”
  • Only the portion of the statement that directly relates to the fact discovered, such as the location or presence of an object, is admissible. Any additional incriminating statements, such as linking the discovered object to the crime, are not admissible.

FACTS:

  • A violent altercation occurred between two factions in a village on December 29, 1944 during which Sivayya and Subayya were killed. This altercation was part of an ongoing factional dispute.
  • The police sub-inspector held an inquest on one of the bodies and recorded statements from five witnesses, including four alleged eyewitnesses.
  • The Circle Inspector took over the investigation, re-examining all alleged eyewitnesses and other witnesses. These statements were recorded in the case diary by the Circle Inspector.
  • Before the Magistrate, the accused applied under Section 162 of the CrPC for copies of the statements made during the investigation. They received statements recorded by the Circle Inspector but were informed that those made to the Sub-Inspector were unavailable.
  • During trial proceedings, the defense counsel highlighted the absence of the Sub-Inspector’s initial statements, requesting them for cross-examination. Although the prosecution initially denied having these records, the Sub-Inspector’s notebook was eventually produced after key prosecution witnesses had been discharged, and a copy was supplied to the defense.
  • Based on the evidence presented, the Sessions Judge found the six hostile eyewitnesses credible and convicted the accused of rioting and murder. Some of the appellants were sentenced to death.
  • The accused appealed, but the Madras High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions.
  • The appellants filed a special leave petition challenging the High Court’s judgment and the evidentiary irregularities under Sections 162 of the CrPC and Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.

HELD:

  • Bombay High Court held that the confessional statements of accused were improperly admitted as evidence and remitted the case back to the High Court of Madras to determine if there is sufficient admissible evidence, apart from the confessions, to justify the convictions.
  • The court held that if the Madras High Court is satisfied that there is sufficient admissible evidence to justify the convictions, they will uphold them. If, on the other hand, they consider that the admissible evidence is not sufficient to justify the convictions, they will take such course, whether by discharging the accused or by ordering a new trial, as may be open to them.
  • The court discussed the purpose and scope of Section 27, which allows for the admissibility of information provided by an accused that leads to the discovery of a fact.
  • The court emphasized that the information provided by the accused must relate distinctly to the fact discovered. It argues against a broad interpretation that would allow any information related to the discovered object to be admissible, as this would undermine the ban on confessions made to the police.
  • The court also criticized a previous decision (Athappa Goundar’s case) for allowing a confession to be admitted based on information about objects produced, which it considers a misinterpretation of the section and observed that such an interpretation would render the ban on confessions made to the police ineffective.