๐ช๐ Purpose of Section 27 IEA/ proviso to section 23 BSA
๐ฎ Myth busted- To lift ban on 25/26 IEA
The essential purpose of Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not to render admissible a โconfessionโ in the โdisclosure statementโ made by an accused to a Police Officer.
๐จโโ๏ธ Case- Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor AIR 1947
If in a โdisclosure statementโ there is a โconfession" such a โconfessionโ is inadmissible
๐ฏ Result- If the inculpatory part of the โdisclosure statementโ is so excluded, then what remains is a mere statement to P.O.
๐ Consequence of Statement-
Will not hit the Ban Under section 162(1) Cr.P.C because of 162(2).
๐ค What is โwhether it amounts to a confession or notโ
If confession is excluded then why this language โ๏ธ
โ Answer- Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor AIR 1947
1. Disclosure statement does not constitute gist of offence only a corroborative piece of evidence other need to be proved.
2. BUT if possessionโ or โconcealmentโ of the incriminating object itself constitutes the gist of the offence disclosure statementโ would be admissible notwithstanding the fact that statement amounts to a โconfessionโ
๐ Laws in which when Section 27 Statement amounts to Confession
1. Opium Act, 1978,
2. Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940,
3. Explosives Act, 1884,
4. Explosive Substances Act, 1908,
5. Public Gambling Act, 1867,
6. Gold Control Act, 1968, 7. Narcotic Drugs Act and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
๐ฌ Illustrationโ
1. Confession- Bold Highlighted part
2. Statement of S. 27 Underline.
3. Statement Amounts to confession for S. 25 Arms Act, 1959
๐ฉโโ๏ธConclusion- Majority of Cases statement does not Amounts to confession but only when concealement and possesion of object itself consitutues offence then amounts to confession.
@CurrentLegalGK
๐ฎ Myth busted- To lift ban on 25/26 IEA
The essential purpose of Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not to render admissible a โconfessionโ in the โdisclosure statementโ made by an accused to a Police Officer.
๐จโโ๏ธ Case- Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor AIR 1947
If in a โdisclosure statementโ there is a โconfession" such a โconfessionโ is inadmissible
๐ฏ Result- If the inculpatory part of the โdisclosure statementโ is so excluded, then what remains is a mere statement to P.O.
๐ Consequence of Statement-
Will not hit the Ban Under section 162(1) Cr.P.C because of 162(2).
๐ค What is โwhether it amounts to a confession or notโ
If confession is excluded then why this language โ๏ธ
โ Answer- Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor AIR 1947
1. Disclosure statement does not constitute gist of offence only a corroborative piece of evidence other need to be proved.
2. BUT if possessionโ or โconcealmentโ of the incriminating object itself constitutes the gist of the offence disclosure statementโ would be admissible notwithstanding the fact that statement amounts to a โconfessionโ
๐ Laws in which when Section 27 Statement amounts to Confession
1. Opium Act, 1978,
2. Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940,
3. Explosives Act, 1884,
4. Explosive Substances Act, 1908,
5. Public Gambling Act, 1867,
6. Gold Control Act, 1968, 7. Narcotic Drugs Act and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
๐ฌ Illustrationโ
Larance says; I have killed Soloman with a Gun and the Gun is placed in the farm house.
1. Confession- Bold Highlighted part
2. Statement of S. 27 Underline.
3. Statement Amounts to confession for S. 25 Arms Act, 1959
๐ฉโโ๏ธConclusion- Majority of Cases statement does not Amounts to confession but only when concealement and possesion of object itself consitutues offence then amounts to confession.
@CurrentLegalGK