Judgment Intelligence
Conviction Set AsideMohmed Inayatullah v. The State of Maharashtra
AIR 1976 SC 483, [1976] 1 SCR 715 and (1976) 1 SCC 828
Criminal Appeal No. 131 of 1971; reported as AIR 1976 SC 483, [1976] 1 SCR 715 and (1976) 1 SCC 828
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Date of Decision
- 9 September 1975
- Bench
- Justices Ranjit Singh Sarkaria and P.N. Bhagwati
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Sections 24, 25, 26, 27, 114 (illustration (a)); Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 379
Final Outcome
The appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside and the appellant acquitted, as he was entitled to the benefit of doubt (paras 18-19).
Key holdings
- Section 27 requires discovery of a fact on information from an accused, proof of that discovery and police custody at the time, and admits only the part of the information that relates distinctly to the fact discovered (para 12).
- ‘Distinctly’ limits the provable part to the direct and immediate cause of the discovery; statements of past history, such as the theft itself, are excluded (paras 12, 15).
- The ‘fact discovered’ includes the object produced, the place from which it is produced and the accused's knowledge of it (para 13).
- An inference under illustration (a) to Section 114 can be drawn only when it is a necessary inference that cannot be explained on any hypothesis other than guilt (para 17).
Brief Facts
Three drums of phosphorous pentaoxide worth Rs. 300 were taken from Bombay Port Trust premises in a car on 01.08.1968 (paras 2-3). When the car's driver came to the police station with the appellant on 26.09.1968, the appellant was taken into custody and stated: "I will tell the place of deposit of the three Chemical drums which I took out from the Haji Bunder on 1st August." (para 4). He led the police to a Musafirkhana where the drums lay (para 5). The courts below admitted his statement, presumed him to be the thief under illustration (a) to Section 114 and upheld his conviction under Section 379 IPC (paras 1, 8).
Court's Findings
Section 27 is an exception to Sections 25 and 26 and has four conditions: discovery of a fact on information from an accused, proof of that discovery, police custody at the time, and admission of only "so much of the information" as relates distinctly to the fact discovered (para 12). ‘Distinctly’ means directly or unmistakably, because only the part that caused the discovery carries a guarantee of truth (para 12). The fact discovered includes the place and the accused's knowledge of it (para 13). The High Court wrongly read the statement as saying that he had kept the drums there (para 14). Only "I will tell the place of deposit of the three Chemical drums" was admissible; the rest was past history of the theft and had to be excluded (para 15). The drums lay in an open Musafirkhana accessible to all, neither concealed nor under his control, so the admissible part could not support a presumption that he was the thief or a receiver (para 16). His knowledge of the place was equally consistent with innocence (para 18).
Legal Principle
Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, only the portion of an accused's statement in custody that is the direct and immediate cause of a discovery is provable; the rest must be excised. A presumption under illustration (a) to Section 114 may be drawn only if the proved facts admit of no hypothesis other than guilt (paras 12, 15, 17).
Precedents Relied Upon
- Palukuri Kotayya v. Emperor 74 I.A. 65
The expression ‘fact discovered’ in Section 27 includes not only the physical object produced but also the place from which it is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this.
- Udai Bhan v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1962] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 830
The expression ‘fact discovered’ includes the place from which the object is produced and the accused's knowledge of it.
- Sukhan v. Crown I.L.R. 10 Lah. 283 F.B.
Earlier view that ‘fact discovered’ is restricted to a physical or material fact perceptible by the senses and does not include a mental fact.
View all precedents (4)
- Rex v. Ganee I.L.R. 56 Bom. 172
Earlier view that ‘fact discovered’ is restricted to a physical or material fact perceptible by the senses and does not include a mental fact.
