Section 27 Evidence Act- Discovery Of Weapon At The Instance Of Accused By Itself Does Not Prove That He Had Concealed Or Used It : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that merely because discovery of weapon was at the instance of accused, it does not mean he had concealed or used it.The bench observed thus while considering an appeal filed by a murder convict, whose conviction under Section 302 IPC was upheld by the Bombay High Court. The court noted that conditions necessary for the applicability of Section 27 of the Act are broadly as under: Discovery of fact in consequence of an information received from accused; Discovery of such fact to be deposed to; The accused must be in police custody when he gave informations and So much of information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered is admissible – Mohmed Inayatullah vs The State of Maharashtra: AIR SC 483: Cur LJ 668 Two conditions for application – information must be such as has caused discovery of the fact; and information must relate distinctly to the fact discovered -Kirshnappa vs State Of Karnataka : AIR SC 446 : Cr LJ 846" Further referring to facts and the judgment in Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of U. P, the bench observed: "What emerges from the evidence of the PW-4 & PW-10 resply is that the appellant stated before the panch witnesses to the effect that "I will show you the weapon concealed adjacent the shoe shop at Parle". Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ; Section 27 - Conditions necessary for the applicability of Section 27 of the Act - Discovery of fact in consequence of an information received from accused; Discovery of such fact to be deposed to; The accused must be in police custody when he gave informations and So much of information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered is admissible - Two conditions for application – information must be such as has caused discovery of the fact; and information must relate distinctly to the fact discovered. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ; Section 27 - Mere discovery cannot be interpreted as sufficient to infer authorship of concealment by the person who discovered the weapon. - Referred to Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of U. P., AIR SC 911 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ; Section 27 - Panchnama has to be read over to the panch before it is exhibited - Panchnama can be used only to corroborate the evidence of the panch and not as a substantive piece of evidence - A panch nama which can be used only to corroborate the panch has to be read over to the panch and only thereafter it can be exhibited.