Section 27 Evidence Act

Indian Evidence Act 1872 : Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023

Shaik Shabuddin v. State of Telangana; 2025 INSC 1449 - S.27 Evidence Act -SC-ST Act

Read Judgment In LawLens Note You can read our notes on this judgment in our Supreme Court Daily Digests. If you are our subscriber, you should get it in our Whatsapp CaseCiter Community at about 9pm on every working day. If you are not our subscriber yet, you can register

Indian Evidence Act 1872 : Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023

Govind v. State of Haryana; 2025 INSC 1318 - S.27 Evidence Act

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 27 - Section 27 is an exception to the preceding Sections 25 and 26. The language further indicates that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person who is in custody of the Police in connection

Constitutional Law

Surendra Koli v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2025 INSC 1308 - Curative Jurisdiction - S.27 Evidence Act

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 27 - Once the disclosure is not contemporaneously proved, once prior knowledge is established, and once contradictions infect the record, Section 27 of the Evidence Act ceases to operate. When the evidence showed that the police and members of the public already knew that

Indian Evidence Act 1872 : Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023

Rajendra Singh vs State of Uttaranchal 2025 INSC 1193 - S.25-27 Evidence Act - Recovery of Weapon

Indian Evidence Act 1872- Section 25-27 - The statement of the accused that the weapons recovered were the weapons of crime cannot be read against them- Only that part of the statement which leads the police to the recovery of the weapons is admissible, and not the part which alleges

Indian Evidence Act 1872 : Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023

Nagamma @ Nagarathna v. State of Karnataka 2025 INSC 1135 - Ss.25-27 Evidence Act - Motive

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 27- A joint or simultaneous disclosure would per se be not inadmissible under Section 27 -But it is very difficult to place reliance on such an utterance in chorus; There would be practical difficulty in placing reliance on such evidence, It is for the

Criminal

Kum. Shubha @ Shubhashankar vs State Of Karnataka 2025 INSC 830 - S.65B Evidence Act - Art.161 Constitution

note: We do not think it is proper to hide the judgment itself from you. However, you must sign in or subscribe to read the notes we have made on this judgment. Click Here To Read Judgment 💡Law of Evidence * Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 65B - The compliance

Criminal

Chetan vs State Of Karnataka 2025 INSC 793 - Ss.8,27 Evidence Act-Motive, Reasonable Doubt, Circumstantial Evidence - S.313 CrPC

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 8 - [ Section 6 BSA] - Mere absconding by itself does not constitute a guilty mind as even an innocent man may feel panicky and may seek to evade the police when wrongly suspected of being involvement as an instinct of self-preservation. But the

Criminal

Renuka Prasad Vs State 2025 INSC 657 - S. 161 CrPC - Ss.27,31 Evidence Act

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 161,162 - Section 161 statements of various witnesses who were questioned by the police during investigation are wholly inadmissible under Section 162 of the Cr.P.C. Merely because the IOs spoke of such statements having been made by the witnesses during

Criminal

Md. Bani Alam Mazid @ Dhan vs State Of Assam 2025 INSC 260 - S 27,106 Evidence Act - Last Seen Together

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 27 -The word ‘fact’ contemplated in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not limited to ‘actual physical material object.’ Discovery of fact arises by reason that the information given by the accused exhibited the knowledge or the mental awareness of the informant as

Criminal

State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Survendra Kumar @ Sunil Kumar - S 27 Evidence Act - Independent Witness Turns Hostile

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 27 - If an independent witness turns hostile that does not mean that the evidence in the form of panchnama is to be outright rejected or discarded. The Investigating Officer can definitely prove the contents of the panchanama. 45. However, the law expects the

Criminal

Raja Khan vs State Of Chattisgarh 2025 INSC 167 - S 27 Evidence Act - Recovery

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 24- 27 - Section 27 lifts the ban, though partially, to the admissibility of confessions. The removal of the ban is not of such an extent so as to absolutely undo the object of Section 26. As such the statement whether confessional or not

Criminal

Harjinder Singh @ Kala Vs State Of Punjab - Criminal Trial - Murder Case - Extra Judicial Confession - Motive - Circumstantial Evidence - Disclosure Statement

Criminal Trial - Extra Judicial Confession - Extra-judicial confession must be accepted with great care and caution. If found reliable and convincing, an extra-judicial confession may be used as corroboration for other evidence to record conviction of the accused. (Para 16) Criminal Trial - Murder Case - Motive - Proof

Indian Evidence Act 1872 : Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023

Vinobhai vs State of Kerala 2025 INSC 119- S 27 Evidence Act - Disclosure Statement

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 27 - Disclosure Statements are not so strong a piece of evidence sufficient on its own and without anything more to bring home the charges beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 8) - Quoted from of Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of M.P. Summary: Murder

Indian Evidence Act 1872 : Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023

Sadashiv Dhondiram Patil Vs State Of Maharashtra 2025 INSC 93 - S 25,27,106 Evidence Act - Motive -Village Police Patil - Extra Judicial Confession

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 106 - The prosecution has to first lay the foundational facts before it seeks to invoke Section 106 of the Evidence Act. If the prosecution has not been able to lay the foundational facts for the purpose of invoking Section 106 of the Evidence

Section 27 Evidence Act

Wadla Bheemaraidu Vs State Of Telangana 2024 INSC 923- S 27 Evidence Act - Circumstantial Evidence

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 27 -Information under Section 27 IEA which leads to discovery of an incriminating material/evidence must be proved by the Investigating Officer as being voluntary and uninfluenced by threat, duress or coercion. The Investigating Officer is also required to prove the contents of the

Indian Penal Code

Suresh Chandra Tiwari Vs State Of Uttarakhand 2024 INSC 907 - S 27 Evidence Act - Ss 302,304 IPC

❓Whether disclosure statement is admissible in evidence if the alleged discovery was not made pursuant to that statement? Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 27 - When disclosure statement was recorded at the police station whereas recovery was made from the place pointed out by the accused enroute to the

Indian Evidence Act 1872 : Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023

Randeep Singh @ Rana Vs State Of Haryana 2024 INSC 887 - Ss 25-27 Evidence Act

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 25-27 - There is a complete prohibition on even proving such confessions made by the accused to a police officer while in custody- Such confessions are not admissible in the evidence except to the extent to which Section 27 is applicable. If such inadmissible