CHANDRAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is for setting aside an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Parur in Cri. M.P. No.44 of 1985 in Sessions Case No.17 of 1984. The order is dated 19-3-1985 and the purport of the order is to permit the prosecution to examine the investigating officer again to prove the alleged confessional statement which led to the recovery of some material object.

(2.) Section 27 of the Evidence Act is a provision which is often complained of being misused for the purpose of creating evidence otherwise not available. It is an exception to the general rule that the confession of an accused person to a police officer is not admissible. What is admissible under Section 27 is only so much of the information which led to the recovery of the object proved to be having connection with the crime. The object recovered acts as corroboration of the information and assurance of its correctness. The information must be one exclusively available to the person making it. But many recoveries on the basis of search or otherwise are afraid of being attempted to be converted as recoveries on informations conveyed by the accused relying on the provisions of Section 27. Such attempts will cut at the root of fair trial which every accused person is entitled.

(3.) In order to ensure fair trial and act as a check against manipulations at the hands of dishonest investigators and further to ensure correctness of the informations it is necessary that such informations which are called disclosure statements should be recorded in first person as and when made. The recovery mahazars or other relevant records must contain such statements to the extent necessary in first person and they will have to be made available to the Court and the accused at the earliest possible opportunity.