Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, three accused persons in Sessions Trial No.24 of 2022 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Buldhana, challenged two orders passed by the trial court which had overruled their objections to the admissibility of portions of testimony of PW4 Gajanan Laxman Ambhore. The petitioners were facing trial for offences punishable under Sections 302, 394, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code along with provisions of the Arms Act. PW4 was a panch witness to various panchanamas including the demonstration panchanama dated 30.11.2021. On 08.10.2024, when PW4's examination-in-chief was being recorded, the petitioners objected to a portion of testimony regarding the demonstration panchanama on the ground that it was hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The trial court overruled that objection. On 19.10.2024, during further examination-in-chief, the petitioners objected to another portion of the testimony pertaining to the demonstration, and by order dated 14.11.2024, the trial court overruled that objection as well. Aggrieved by the rejection of their objections, the petitioners filed Criminal Writ Petition No.49 of 2025 before the High Court. The core legal issues before the High Court were whether the demonstration panchanama and the related testimony of PW4 were admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; whether the impugned portions amounted to a confession hit by Sections 25 and 26 of the Act; and whether the trial court correctly applied the decision in Pulukuri Kotayya v. King-Emperor. The petitioners argued that the demonstration panchanama did not lead to any discovery and therefore could not qualify under Section 27 of the Act. They contended that the testimony was a confession made to police and thus barred under Sections 25 and 26. They further submitted that the trial court had mistakenly relied on a passage from Pulukuri Kotayya which was actually the prosecution's argument, not the Privy Council's holding, and relied on Perumal Raja v. State and Ajijkhan Mohd. Khan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra. The State, on the other hand, argued that the trial court's ultimate conclusion was legally correct and that discovery of a fact pursuant to information received from an accused is admissible under Section 27 as an exception to the general rule. The High Court, per Chandwani J., examined the statutory framework. Section 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 make confessions made by an accused to a police officer while in custody inadmissible, unless made before a Magistrate. Section 27 is an exception to these provisions; it makes information given by an accused to a police officer admissible, whether it amounts to a confession or not, provided that the information relates distinctly to the fact discovered. The court observed that the basic idea embedded in Section 27 is the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent event. The court noted that the trial court had indeed quoted a passage from Pulukuri Kotayya which was the prosecution's submission, not the Privy Council's observation, thus committing a clear error in treating that passage as precedent. The court then traced the evolution of law through decisions in Sukhan v. Emperor, Pulukuri Kotayya v. King-Emperor, H.P. Administration v. Om Prakash and State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu. The Privy Council in Pulukuri Kotayya had held that fact discovered includes not just the object but also the place from which it is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this, provided the information relates distinctly to that fact. The Supreme Court in H.P. Administration v. Om Prakash clarified that pointing out a witness without any recovery of an object could not be termed discovery under Section 27. In State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, the Supreme Court affirmed that a fact discovered must be a concrete fact to which the information directly relates. The provided excerpt of the judgment ends before the final operative direction, so the ultimate decision of the High Court on the writ petition is not available in the text.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Confession to Police - Inadmissibility - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 25 - The petitioners objected to PW4's testimony describing statements allegedly made by accused to police while in custody relating to demonstration of crime; the trial court overruled the objections finding it not a confession. The High Court noted that Section 25 makes confessions made to a police officer while in custody inadmissible unless made before a Magistrate. (Paras 2-4, 7-8, 11) B) Criminal Law - Discovery of Fact - Exception under Section 27 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 27 - Section 27 permits proof of information received from an accused, whether confession or not, if it relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered. The court explained that the basic idea is the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent event. (Paras 11-12) C) Evidence - Interpretation of Precedent - Distinction between counsel submission and judicial observation - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 27 - The trial court quoted a passage from Pulukuri Kotayya which was actually the submission of the prosecution, not the observations of the Privy Council. The High Court held that the trial court erred in relying on that passage as precedent. (Paras 5, 9-10) D) Criminal Law - Scope of Fact Discovered - Mental facts and concrete fact - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 27 - The court traced the line of cases from Sukhan, Pulukuri Kotayya, H.P. Administration v. Om Prakash, and State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu to explain that fact discovered must be a concrete fact to which information directly relates, not merely a witness or a demonstration without recovery of any object. (Paras 13-18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the demonstration panchanama and testimony of PW4 regarding information and demonstration by accused is admissible under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872; whether portions of PW4's testimony amount to confession hit by Sections 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872; whether the trial court correctly interpreted and applied the decision in Pulukuri Kotayya v. King-Emperor in overruling the objections.
Final Decision
Not mentioned in provided excerpt
Law Points
- Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act
- 1872 is an exception to Sections 25 and 26
- information from accused admissible only if it distinctly relates to fact discovered
- fact discovered includes place and knowledge but must be concrete fact
- confession to police inadmissible unless before Magistrate
- demonstration panchanama may not qualify without discovery
- trial court misinterpreted Pulukuri Kotayya by citing prosecution submission as holding
- doctrine of confirmation by subsequent event
