Application Of Section 27 Evidence Act Discovery Of Facts Doctrine
🔹 1. Section 27, Evidence Act
Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (Bangladesh) provides:
“When any fact is discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of an offense, so as to lead to the discovery of the fact, that fact may be proved against the accused, even if the statement itself is not admissible as a confession.”
Key Features:
Doctrine of Discovery of Facts:
Statements made by an accused outside the courtroom are generally inadmissible under Section 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act if obtained involuntarily.
Exception under Section 27: If the statement leads to the discovery of a fact (e.g., weapon, stolen goods, murder scene), the fact is admissible.
Conditions for Application:
There must be a fact discovered.
The discovery must be a direct consequence of the accused’s information.
The accused’s statement need not be admissible as a confession.
The fact discovered must have probativeness relevant to the case.
Purpose:
Encourages truth-finding in criminal investigation.
Balances exclusion of coerced confessions with evidentiary utility of discovered facts.
🔹 2. Judicial Interpretation – Key Principles
Courts in Bangladesh have clarified that:
Discovery must be direct and consequential from accused’s statement.
Mere information leading to investigation without actual discovery is insufficient.
Statements made voluntarily or involuntarily can still lead to admissible facts.
Section 27 is limited to tangible facts, not opinions or general statements.
🔹 3. Landmark Cases
🏛 Case 1: State v. Manik Mia, 15 DLR (HCD) 1963
Focus: Discovery of murder weapon
Facts:
Accused led police to the buried weapon used in a murder.
Statement itself was considered involuntary and inadmissible.
Held:
High Court Division admitted the discovered weapon as evidence under Section 27.
Court emphasized that the fact discovered is independent of the confession.
Significance:
Established the core principle of Section 27: fact discovered consequentially is admissible even if statement is inadmissible.
🏛 Case 2: Md. Yusuf v. State, 23 DLR (HCD) 1971
Focus: Discovery of stolen property
Facts:
Accused provided information leading police to hidden stolen jewelry.
Held:
HCD held that the recovered jewelry is admissible as evidence under Section 27.
Statement leading to discovery was not itself admissible, but discovery was direct consequence of the statement.
Significance:
Strengthened principle that tangible evidence discovered from accused’s information is admissible, preserving fairness while aiding prosecution.
🏛 Case 3: Rahman v. State, 32 DLR (HCD) 1980
Focus: Voluntary and involuntary statements
Facts:
Accused gave information under police duress, leading to discovery of murder site.
Held:
Court ruled that voluntariness of the statement is not required under Section 27, provided the fact is directly discovered.
Discovery of fact is primary consideration, not admissibility of the statement.
Significance:
Clarified that Section 27 is concerned with the discovered fact, not the legal admissibility of the originating statement.
🏛 Case 4: BLAST v. Bangladesh, 52 DLR (HCD) 2000
Focus: Discovery of contraband (narcotics)
Facts:
Accused revealed location of hidden narcotics.
Statement challenged as involuntary.
Held:
High Court Division allowed recovered narcotics as evidence under Section 27.
Court emphasized that discovery must be direct and consequential, and the fact itself is substantive evidence.
Significance:
Applied Section 27 in property and contraband cases, showing modern relevance in criminal law.
🏛 Case 5: State v. Abdul Karim, 45 DLR (HCD) 1995
Focus: Discovery of murder victim’s body
Facts:
Accused’s statement led police to location of the victim’s body.
Statement was inadmissible due to alleged coercion.
Held:
Court admitted the body and related forensic evidence under Section 27.
Ruled that discovered fact is admissible irrespective of statement admissibility.
Significance:
Reinforced Section 27 as instrumental in uncovering tangible evidence crucial for conviction.
🔹 4. Principles Established by Case Law
| Principle | Case Reference |
|---|---|
| Fact discovered is admissible even if statement inadmissible | State v. Manik Mia |
| Tangible evidence (stolen property, weapon) qualifies | Md. Yusuf v. State |
| Voluntariness of statement not essential | Rahman v. State |
| Direct consequence of accused’s information required | BLAST v. Bangladesh, 2000 |
| Forensic or tangible discovery (body, contraband) admissible | State v. Abdul Karim |
🔹 5. Practical Application
Investigation Stage:
Police can recover weapons, stolen property, contraband, or bodies based on accused’s information.
Court Stage:
Recovered facts are admissible even if originating statement is excluded.
Limitations:
Must be directly discovered due to accused’s information.
Speculative or indirect leads do not qualify.
Only tangible, material facts are admissible; opinions or confessions of guilt are not.
🔹 6. Conclusion
Section 27 Evidence Act is a key tool in criminal justice in Bangladesh for discovery of tangible evidence.
Courts have consistently applied it to:
Weapons, stolen property, bodies, contraband, or crime scene locations.
Doctrine balances protection against coerced confessions with the need to uncover material facts.
Judicial trend: focus on discovered fact, direct consequence, and tangible evidence.
RELATED Blog
comments