Sections 27 and 28 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Discovery of Facts and Confessions

Sections 27 and 28 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deal with two important exceptions and qualifications concerning statements and confessions by an accused. This article explains the legal position under the Indian Evidence Act as it stood immediately before the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 came into force.

Legal context: Section 27 concerns the limited admissibility of information received from an accused in police custody when that information distinctly relates to a fact discovered. Section 28 concerns a confession that becomes relevant after the impression caused by an inducement, threat or promise referred to in Section 24 has been fully removed.

Section 27 - How much information received from an accused may be proved

Statutory rule in substance When a fact is discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of an offence while in the custody of a police officer, only so much of that information, whether confessional or not, as distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered may be proved.

Section 27 operates as a limited exception to the restrictions contained in Sections 25 and 26 concerning confessions made to police officers or while an accused is in police custody. It does not make the whole statement admissible. The admissible part is confined to the portion having a distinct connection with the fact discovered as a consequence of the information.

Essential requirements of Section 27

The information must be received from a person accused of an offence.
The accused must be in the custody of a police officer when the information is given.
A fact must be discovered in consequence of the information.
Only the part of the information that distinctly relates to the fact discovered is provable.
The admissibility is limited; Section 27 does not permit admission of an otherwise barred confession merely because some discovery followed.

Meaning of "fact discovered"

The expression "fact discovered" is not confined merely to the physical object recovered. Judicial interpretation has treated it as capable of including the place from which an object is produced and the accused's knowledge concerning that place or fact, provided the information sought to be proved distinctly relates to the discovery.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly explained that Section 27 is based on confirmation by subsequent events: discovery following information may supply assurance for the limited portion of the information that is directly connected with the discovered fact. The provision must nevertheless be applied strictly because Sections 25 and 26 otherwise protect an accused against the use of specified police-related confessions.

Section 28 - Confession after removal of inducement, threat or promise

Statutory rule in substance If a confession of the kind referred to in Section 24 is made after the impression caused by the relevant inducement, threat or promise has, in the opinion of the Court, been fully removed, the confession is relevant.

Section 28 must be read with Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 24 addresses a confession affected by an inducement, threat or promise of the legally specified kind. Section 28 recognizes that the disqualifying influence may cease. Once the Court is satisfied that the impression created by that inducement, threat or promise has been fully removed, a later confession is not excluded merely because the earlier influence once existed.

What the Court must consider under Section 28

The statutory test is whether the impression caused by the inducement, threat or promise has been fully removed. The question is therefore one for judicial assessment on the facts and circumstances surrounding the later confession. Section 28 should be considered together with the broader rules governing voluntariness and admissibility of confessions.

Relationship between Sections 24 to 28

Sections 24 to 28 form part of the Evidence Act's framework governing confessions. Section 24 addresses confessions affected by specified inducement, threat or promise. Sections 25 and 26 impose restrictions concerning confessions to police and confessions while in police custody. Section 27 permits proof of the narrowly defined portion of custodial information that distinctly relates to a discovered fact. Section 28 deals with a later confession after the disqualifying impression contemplated by Section 24 has been fully removed.

Practical legal significance

For Section 27, the central inquiry is not whether the entire statement is true or confessional, but precisely which portion of the information distinctly relates to the fact actually discovered. For Section 28, the central inquiry is whether the earlier improper influence has genuinely ceased to operate before the later confession was made. In both situations, admissibility depends on satisfying the statutory conditions rather than merely describing a statement as a confession or a disclosure.

This page explains the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 position applicable before commencement of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. It is intended as general legal information and should be read with the statutory text and binding judicial decisions applicable to the particular proceeding.