“Recovery Evidence” Under Section 27 Of The Evidence Act- Questions & Answers By Justice V Ramkumar [Part-XI]

There is absolutely nothing in Section 27 to indicate that the person who discovers the incriminating fact should be the identical person who received the information. ); Paras 28 to 30 of State of Rajasthan v. Teja Ram and Others - AIR 1999 SC 1776 – K. T. Thomas – J – Held that recovery of axe pursuant to statement made by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and obtaining the signature of the accused on the seizure memo, does not vitiate the seizure or the testimony of the witness in Court. has been held to include “an accused person” as well., which was approved by the Privy Council in Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emperor AIR 1939 PC 47 – Lord Atkin - J;, which was approved by the Privy Council in Para 3 of Velu Viswanathan v. State - 1971 KLT 80 – T. C. Raghavan - J ; – T. C. Raghavan - J Para 4 of Mathew Zacharia v. State of Kerala - 1974 KLT 42 – V. P. Gopalan Nambiyar, George Vadakkel – JJ ; – Para 39 of Mahabir Mandal and Others v. State of Bihar – 1 SCC 748 = AIR 1972 SC 1331 - 3 Judges – J. M. Shelat, R. Khanna, G. K. Mitter - JJ ; 3 Judges – Paras 32 and 33 of Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Interestingly, in the year 2003, the Supreme Court itself in para 14 of Golakonda Venketeswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh- AIR 2003 SC 2846 – H. K. Sema – J, attempted to distinguish the original judgment in Jackaran Singh without knowing or being informed that the Supreme Court itself had suo motu reviewed Jackaran Singh on 25-04-1996. ORIGINAL JUDGMENT OF JACKARAN SINGH FOLLOWED IN THE UNDERMENTIONED REPORTED CASES Para 10 of Fellix – Joannas v. State of Karnataka – – Kumar Rajaratnam and M. P. Chinnappa – JJ – accused was acquitted following Jackaran Singh without noticing the suo motu review by the Supreme Court.