How much of information received from accused may be proved
Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with how much of information received from accused may be proved. Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered inconsequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police-officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may b The Act came into force on 01 Sep 1872. Repealed by section 170 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (47 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered inconsequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police-officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.
Section 27, The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872).
Now in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam
BSA 23 Confession to police officer Distant match 62%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Selvi v. State of Karnataka
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Involuntary narco-analysis, polygraph and BEAP tests violate Article 20(3) (testimonial compulsion) and Article 21. Results of involuntary tests are inadmissible. Voluntary tests with safeguards may be conducted; derivative use of facts discovered is constrained by Evidence Act section 27 principles.
On this section: Derivative use of facts discovered from involuntary tests is constrained by s.27 principles and Arts. 20(3)/21.
-
Pawan Kumar @ Monu Mittal vs State of U. P.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a case rests on circumstantial evidence, conviction is justified when all incriminating facts and circumstances are found incompatible with the innocence of the accused or guilt of any other person, and a complete chain of events is established linking the accused to the crime. Confessional statements made to police, while inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, may be used as source of information to discover facts under Section 27, and such discoveries based on the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events can support conviction when combined with other credible evidence. In evaluating concurrent findings of fact by Trial Court and High Court, the Supreme Court will not interfere unless findings are vitiated by grave error of law or lead to serious and substantial miscarriage of justice.
On this section: Facts discovered as consequence of information from accused - applies when confessional information leads to recovery of incriminating material; doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events
-
Shiv Kesh Giri @ Lalla vs State of U. P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In a criminal case based on circumstantial evidence without direct eyewitnesses, when confessions to police lead to discovery of incriminating materials (weapons, cartridges, stolen items) through Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, and when multiple pieces of circumstantial evidence form a complete and unbroken chain of events establishing motive, opportunity, and participation in the crime, the conviction of the accused can be sustained. The Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by trial and appellate courts unless such findings are vitiated by grave error of law, procedure, or misreading of evidence resulting in serious miscarriage of justice. Minor discrepancies and gaps in eyewitness testimony do not vitiate an otherwise strong and consistent chain of circumstantial evidence when the totality points conclusively to guilt.
On this section: How much of information from accused may be proved - Doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events; applies when facts are discovered as a result of information from accused, whether confessional or not
-
Chandra Prakash vs State of Rajasthan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases of criminal conspiracy, the prosecution need not prove express agreement between conspirators; the agreement may be proved by necessary implication from circumstances. When assessing approver evidence, courts must first apply a reliability test to determine if the approver is a trustworthy witness on the evidence itself, independent of corroboration. Only if the approver passes the reliability test does the second test apply, requiring corroboration in material particulars that connects the accused with the offense. Such corroboration must come from independent sources and may be direct or circumstantial in nature. Under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, discovery of facts in consequence of information from an accused in custody is admissible if the information is credible and material discovery is effected; formal arrest is not necessary, only that the person be accused of an offense and in custody of a police officer. The broad definition of 'explosive substance' under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and 'explosive' under the Explosive Act, 1884 encompasses materials for making explosives; when such materials are possessed in conjunction with other explosive articles and components in large quantities, possession constitutes a criminal offense even without direct evidence of criminal intent if the circumstances demonstrate conscious possession for use in explosions. Sanction under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 requires only 'consent' for subjective appreciation and can be granted by District Magistrate pursuant to delegation from Central Government; the sanctioning authority need not be examined as a witness if the sanction document is properly proven and shows application of mind.
On this section: How much of information received from person accused of offense when in custody of police officer is admissible based on discovery of fact
-
Rakesh Anand vs State of up
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, where a complete chain of circumstances is established linking the accused to the commission of the offence, such circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and is as reliable as direct eyewitness evidence. The doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act permits evidence of facts discovered as a consequence of information given by the accused, notwithstanding that the information itself may constitute a confession barred under Section 25. Appellate courts should not interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by trial courts and confirmed by high courts unless such findings are vitiated by grave error of law, error of procedure, misreading of evidence, or would result in serious and substantial miscarriage of justice.
On this section: Permits evidence of information given by accused if it results in discovery of a fact, based on doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events; court held this exception applies to the confessional statements in this case.
-
Aslam @ Deewan vs State of Rajasthan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The ratio decidendi of this judgment is that: (1) Under Section 394 IPC, both those who actually cause hurt during robbery and those who are jointly concerned in the commission of robbery become liable even without knowledge of the likelihood of hurt or reasonable belief in its probability; (2) When a test identification parade is properly conducted by a Judicial Magistrate in the presence of the injured witness and police, and the accused are identified, such identification is valid and admissible evidence to prove guilt; (3) Recovery of stolen articles and weapons in pursuance of information given by accused under Section 27 Evidence Act corroborates the prosecution case and strengthens the evidence against the accused; (4) The minimum sentence of ten years RI prescribed under Section 394 IPC must be imposed, especially in cases where the accused are habitual offenders, and length of custody suffered cannot be ground to reduce the sentence.
On this section: Admissibility of statements made by accused in police custody when information leads to discovery of relevant facts; used to validate recovery of stolen articles, iron rod, and money in pursuance of accused's information
-
Tofan Singh vs The State of Tamil Nadu through the Ineliigence Officer
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Officers designated under Section 53 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 are 'police officers' within the meaning of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Consequently, any confessional statement made to such officers is barred from being used as evidence under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Additionally, a statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act, as Section 67 is limited to calling for information and examining persons during an inquiry antecedent to investigation, not for recording confessions as substantive evidence.
On this section: Information received from accused in custody may be proved if it relates distinctly to fact discovered
-
Roshan vs The State ( Nct of Delhi)
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the sole eyewitness testimony in a criminal case is that of a stock witness of the police whose credibility is suspect, and such testimony lacks corroboration from any other reliable evidence, the conviction cannot be sustained. The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the burden is not on the accused to prove innocence. Common intention under Section 34 IPC must be proved beyond reasonable doubt as a foundational requirement, and mere presence at the scene of crime without more does not establish common intention. The quality of evidence, not the quantity of witnesses, is the criterion for conviction.
On this section: Recovery of objects in consequence of information received from accused; the Court examined the recovery of the knife and bloodstained clothes and found serious doubts about the procedure and credibility
-
Duryodhan Rout vs State of Orissa
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a person is convicted of multiple offences at one trial, including one offence for which the sentence is life imprisonment, the proviso to Sub-Section (2) of Section 31 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, which limits aggregate imprisonment to 14 years, applies to prevent consecutive sentences. All sentences must run concurrently because life imprisonment means imprisonment for the entire remaining life of the convict, and the concept of consecutive sentences does not apply when one sentence is life imprisonment. The term 'imprisonment' in Section 31 CrPC includes life imprisonment as defined in the General Clauses Act, 1897, and life imprisonment is not equivalent to 14 years or 20 years but means imprisonment for the whole of the remaining period of the convict's natural life unless remitted by the appropriate Government.
On this section: Admissibility of confessional statements made during police custody when they lead to discovery of facts; applied to admit appellant's confession leading to recovery of dead body
-
Duryodhan Rout vs State of Orissa
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a person is convicted of multiple offences including one for which life imprisonment is the sentence, all sentences imposed under the Indian Penal Code must run concurrently rather than consecutively, because life imprisonment extends for the entire remaining span of the convicted person's natural life and is not confined to any definite period. The proviso to subsection (2) of Section 31 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which limits aggregate punishment to 14 years in cases of consecutive sentences, precludes the imposition of consecutive sentences when life imprisonment forms part of the conviction, as this would exceed the statutory limit. The term 'imprisonment' in Section 31 Cr.P.C includes life imprisonment, and life imprisonment means imprisonment for the full span of life unless commuted by the appropriate Government under Sections 55, 433, or 433A of Cr.P.C.
On this section: Admissibility of facts discovered as a result of confessional statement; applied to admit the confessional statement of the appellant and the recovery of the dead body based on that statement
-
Sahadevan vs State of T. Nadu
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases of circumstantial evidence relying heavily on extra-judicial confession: (1) Extra-judicial confession is weak evidence requiring examination with great care and caution; (2) It must be voluntary, truthful, inspire confidence, and be corroborated by other prosecution evidence free from material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities; (3) Theory of last seen together cannot form sole basis of conviction without establishing small time gap between being last seen alive and found dead making other perpetrators impossible; (4) When prosecution evidence itself disproves core motive and material facts stated in extra-judicial confession through its own witnesses, the confession loses credibility and becomes unsafe foundation for conviction; (5) Where entire prosecution case suffers from material contradictions, contradictions between witness statements, crucial evidence is unreliable and chain of circumstances is incomplete, courts must acquit accused as prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
On this section: Fact discovered in consequence of accused's information in custody - Recovery of moped, kerosene bottle, and matchbox made under this section; admissibility examined despite missing witness
-
Sanjay Kumar Jain vs State of Delhi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a woman dies within seven years of marriage in unnatural circumstances and it is established that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives for or in connection with demand for dowry, the husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death under Section 304B IPC, even if the exact manner and perpetrator of death cannot be conclusively proved through direct evidence. The prosecution must establish the three ingredients of Section 304B: (1) cruelty or harassment by husband or relatives; (2) such cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with dowry demand; (3) such cruelty or harassment was within seven years of marriage. In cases of circumstantial evidence, all circumstances must be fully proved, conclusive in nature, and form a complete chain excluding every hypothesis except guilt; however, Section 304B provides a substantive offence that does not require the same level of proof as murder under Section 302 IPC.
On this section: Admissibility of recovery - Court discussed that recovery must be effected after arrest; disclosure statement before arrest renders recovery inadmissible
-
State of U. P vs Sunil
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In a criminal case based solely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances that is consistent only with the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with any other hypothesis. Where the prosecution fails to establish an independent, credible connection between the accused and the incident alleged, the entire edifice of circumstantial evidence collapses, regardless of individual pieces of physical evidence. Adverse inference from refusal to provide fingerprints or similar evidence cannot serve as the sole or primary basis for conviction. The burden of proof throughout remains on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
On this section: Exception to restrictions on confessions - Allows admissibility of facts discovered pursuant to information obtained from an accused's statement. The Court applied this section to the recovery of the murder weapon and other articles.
-
Rakesh Kumar Gudda vs Union Territory Of Jammu & Kashmir
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the stage of framing charges under Section 228 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court is only required to consider whether the material on record, taken on its face value, discloses the existence of all ingredients constituting the alleged offences. Even strong suspicion against the accused for commission of alleged offence is good enough to frame a charge. The court need not assess whether the evidence is sufficient for conviction. A confessional statement made by co-accused to police officer, though inadmissible against the person making it under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, does not vitiate the charge if other oral and circumstantial evidence, including motive, association, and recovery of weapon pursuant to disclosure statement under Section 27, prima facie establishes involvement of the accused. Bail on medical grounds should be granted where the accused is suffering from serious medical conditions resistant to treatment and the trial has progressed sufficiently to reduce risk of witness tampering.
On this section: Information received from accused in police custody leading to discovery of fact is admissible; based on doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events; applied to recovery of weapon
-
Rankanidhi Behera vs State
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The testimony of a child witness aged 11-12 years, when subjected to heightened scrutiny and found to be clear, cogent, reliable and trustworthy, can form the sole basis for conviction in a murder case, particularly when: (1) the child's presence at the scene of occurrence is natural and undisputed; (2) the child's testimony is corroborated by medical evidence and recovery evidence; (3) the child witness demonstrates confidence and consistency in core facts despite minor contradictions in peripheral details; (4) the trial judge's observation regarding the demeanor of the child witness supports credibility; and (5) voluntary intoxication of the accused cannot serve as a defense to negate the intention required for murder under Section 302 IPC.
On this section: Admissibility of confessional statement made by accused leading to discovery of fact. Applied to admit the statement of appellant recorded by police leading to recovery of the severed head.
-
STATE vs HARJINDER SINGH
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal cases, the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent, and convincing evidence. The prosecution cannot derive any benefit from weaknesses in the defense. When the main eyewitness (complainant) turns hostile and does not support the prosecution version, and when there is no other credible evidence linking the accused to the commission of the offence, the accused is entitled to acquittal. Disclosure statements obtained during custodial interrogation under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act cannot be used against the accused and have no evidentiary value. The burden of proof always rests on the prosecution and never shifts to the accused.
On this section: Confession made during custodial interrogation leading to recovery - court held such confession cannot be used against accused and has no evidentiary value
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… Be that as it may, if a confession is made by the accused before the police and a portion of the confession leads to the recovery of any incriminating material, such portion alone is admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Since only such portion of the confession relating to the recovery of certain material objects was admitted in evidence and relied upon, such reliance was in accordance with law. > 59.. From the evidence of the witnesses discussed supra, it is amply clear that the dead body recovered …
-
… was part of the "Orient Express" Telegram group, in the worst case scenario, merely being a member does not implicate the Applicant under NDPS Act unless specific role is ascribed to him. - F. He further states that the statement of the Applicant under section 67 NDPS does not lead to discovery of "fact" as per section 27 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ("IEA"). The first BAIL APPLN. 148/2022 Page 7 of 34 statement of the Applicant dated 30.09.2021 does not include any information which is not already known to the respondent. The Applicant has disclosed about the Orient …
-
… belonging to any person in particular were lapses but were not sufficient to prove the innocence of the accused. - (vii) The recovery of the knife was not pursuant to the information provided by A-1 that he had thrown it near the CNG pump on Military Road. The recovery is, therefore, not within the parameters of Section 27 Indian Evidence Act ("IEA"). - (viii) Further, the FSL report (Ex.PW-38/A) showed that no blood could be detected on the knife. Therefore, the testimony of PW-37 that there was blood at tip of the knife when it was seized did not inspire confidence. Even the opinion of the doctor who conducted the postmortem as to …
Questions about Section 27
What have the courts held on Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act?
Selvi v. State of Karnataka (05 May 2010) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Derivative use of facts discovered from involuntary tests is constrained by s.27 principles and Arts. 20(3)/21. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 13 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2008 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: IEA 27, section 27 IEA, section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. People searching for it also type evidence act 27 in bsa. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Selvi v. State of Karnataka (05 May 2010).
What should I read with Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, and has it changed?
For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BSA 23 (Confession to police officer), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act come into force?
Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, cited as IEA 27, came into force on 01 Sep 1872, having been enacted on 15 Mar 1872. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 32. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant1207 words
- 14. Facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body of bodily feeling1080 words
- 92. Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement809 words
- 8. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct773 words
- 65B. Admissibility of electronic records743 words
- 3. Interpretation-clause667 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item e51341fa-7528-4327-9a57-5d194e16db6f). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.