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

PULUKURI KOTTAYA V. KING-EMPEROR

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.