Facts of the Case

A, B, and C are jointly accused of murdering D.
While in police custody, A made a statement to the Sub-Inspector of Police stating:

“I, together with B and C, murdered D and have concealed his dead body under a culvert.”

Based on this information, the police discovered and recovered D’s dead body from under the culvert.
The prosecution seeks to rely on A’s custodial statement:

• Against A himself, and
• Against B and C as co-accused.

Issues in the Case

1. Whether A’s confession made while in police custody is admissible against him under the Indian Evidence Act.
2. Whether any portion of the statement can be used as evidence against B and C.
3. Whether the recovery of the dead body under Section 27 makes any part of the statement relevant.
4. Whether the confessional statement involving co-accused can be used as substantive evidence against them.

Legal Principles Covered

A. Confessions to Police — Sections 25 & 26, Indian Evidence Act

• Section 25: Confession made to a police officer is inadmissible against the accused.
• Section 26: Confession made while in police custody is also inadmissible, unless made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate.

Thus, A’s confession as a whole is not admissible against him under Sections 25–26.

B. Discovery Statements — Section 27, Indian Evidence Act

Section 27 creates an exception:

• Only that portion of the statement of the accused
• Which distinctly relates to the fact discovered
• Is admissible.

In this case:

• The portion “I have concealed the dead body under a culvert”
  is admissible against A, because it directly leads to discovery.
• The portion “I, together with B and C, murdered D”
  is not admissible, as it does not relate to discovery.

C. Relevancy Against B and C — Sections 30 & 27

Section 30 allows the court to consider a confession of one accused against co-accused only if:

• It is a confession,
• Made before the court,
• While the accused are being jointly tried.

But here:

• The statement is a custodial confession to police, prohibited under Sections 25 & 26.
• Only the discovery portion is admissible under Section 27, and Section 27 cannot be used against co-accused.

Therefore, the statement is not admissible against B and C.

D. Leading Case Law

Courts have consistently held:

• Section 27 does not permit implicating co-accused.
• Only the discovery-related portion can be used, and only against the maker of the statement.

Thus, only A can be linked through the recovered fact.

Possible Judgement

1. The confessional statement made by A to the police while in custody is inadmissible in its entirety under Sections 25–26.
2. However, the portion leading to recovery—i.e.,
   “I have concealed the dead body under a culvert”
   is admissible against A under Section 27.
3. The parts of the statement implicating B and C—
   “I together with B and C murdered D”
   are not admissible against A or co-accused, as they are barred by Sections 25 & 26.
4. The Section 27 discovery portion cannot be used against B or C; discovery evidence is admissible only against the maker of the statement.
5. Therefore, the statement is relevant and admissible only to the limited extent of discovery and only against A, and not relevant or admissible against B and C.

About lawgnan

If you are a law student, legal researcher, or practitioner seeking clear, reliable, and exam-ready explanations of complex legal principles, visit Lawgana.in today. Our platform provides structured case analyses, evidence law explanations, and judgment-based reasoning to help you understand every concept with precision. Explore more detailed notes, solved legal problems, important case summaries, and subject-wise study resources prepared for competitive exams and academic excellence. Stay ahead in your legal journey with accurate, updated, and easy-to-learn content crafted by experts. Visit Lawgana.in now and strengthen your legal knowledge with confidence.