MEHBOOBALI &ANR. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [2015] 10 S.C.R. 553 · Decided: 27-10-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.L. DATTU · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 10 S.C.R. 553 
' MEHBOOBALI &ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
(Criminal Appeal No.808 of 2010) 
OCTOBER27, 2015 
[H.L. DATTU, CJI AND ARUN MISHRA, J.] 
Evidence Act, 1872: s. 27 - Statement of accused leading 
A 
B 
to identification and arrest of other accused persons and C 
recovery of fake currency notes which information not known 
to police - Admissibility of his statement - Held: The 
statement of accused led to the discovery of fact proving 
complicity of other accused persons and the entire chain of 
circumstances clearly made out that co-accused acted in 0 
conspiracy - These facts were not in the knowledge of the 
Police hence the statement of the accused leading to 
discovery of fact was clearly admissible as per the provisions 
contained in s. 27 of the Act which carves out an exception to 
the general provisions about inadmissibility of confession E 
made under police custody contained in ss. 25 and 26 of the 
Act - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 4898, 489C. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. Section 25 of the Evidence Act provides F 
that no confession made to a Police Officer shall be 
proved as against a person accused of any offence. 
Section 26 provides that no confession made by any 
person while he is in the custody of a police officer, 
unless it be made in the immediate presence of a G 
Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person. 
Section 27 is in the form of a proviso, it lays down how 
much of an information received from accused may be 
553 
H 
554 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 
A proved. For application of section 27 of Evidence Act, 
admissible portion of confessional statement h~s to be 
found as to a fact which were the immediate cause of 
the discovery, only that would be part of legal evidence 
and not the rest. In a statement if something new is 
B discovered or recovered from the accused which was 
not in the knowledge of the Police before disclosure 
statement of the accused is recorded, is admissible in 
the evidence. [Paras 12 and 13] [561-C-F] 
C 
2. It is apparent that on the basis of the information 
furnished by accused 'M' and 'F', the other accused, 'A' 
was arrested. The fact that 'A' was dealing with forged 
currency notes was not to the knowledge ofthe Police. 
Accused 'M' and 'F' identified 'A' and ultimately 
D statements led to unearthing the racket of use of fake 
currency notes. Thus, the information furnished by 
accused 'M' and 'F' was clearly admissible which led to 
the identification and arrest of accused 'A' and from 
possession of 'A' fake currency notes had been 
E recovered. As per information furnished by accused 'M' 
and 'F' vide memos P41 and P42, the fact has been 
discovered by Police as to the involvement of accused 
'A' which was not to the knowledge of the Police. Thus 
F the statement of accused 'M' and 'F' is clearly saved by 
section 27 of the Evidence Act. The embargo put by 
section 27 of the Evidence Act was clearly lifted !n the 
instant case. The statement of the accused persons has 
led to the discovery of fact proving complicity of other 
G accused persons and the entire chain of circumstances 
clearly makes out that accused acted in conspiracy as 
found by the trial court as well as the High Court. It is 
apparent that there was discovery of a fact as per the 
statement of 'M' and 'F'. Co-accu~ed was nabbed on the 
H basis of identification made by them. He was dealing with 
MEHBOOBALI &ANR. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
555 
fake currency notes came to the knowledge of police A 
through them. Recovery of forged currency notes was 
also made from 'A'. Thus the said accused had the 
knowledge about co-accused 'A' who was nabbed at their 
instance and on the basis of their identification. These 
facts were not to the knowledge ofthe Police hence the B 
statements of the accused persons leading to discovery 
of fact are clearly admissible as per the provisions 
contained in section 27 of the Evidence Act which carves 
out an exception to the general provisions about 
inadmissibility of confession made under police custody C 
contained in sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. 
[Paras 15, 20] [562-E-H; 563-A-C; 567-G-H; 568-A-C] 
State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan 
Guru (2005) 11 SCC 600: 2005 (2) Suppl.-SCR 
79; Pulukuri Kottaya & Ors. v. Emperor AIR 1947 
PC 67; State of Maharashtra v. Damu Gopinath 
Shinde & Ors. AIR 2000 SC 1691: 2000 (3) SCR 
· 880; Ismail v. Emperor AIR 1946 Sind 43; 
Subedar& Ors. v. Kin

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.