In this case, Kathi Kalu Oghad was convicted of murder, with a significant piece of evidence against him being a statement made under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. This statement led to the discovery of firearms used in the commission of the crime. The validity of this evidence was challenged based on its admissibility under the Constitution, specifically Article 20(3), which protects individuals from self-incrimination.
IssuesThe primary issue was the constitutional validity of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act in light of Article 20(3) of the Constitution. Specifically, the question was whether the information provided by the accused, which resulted in the discovery of incriminating evidence, could be admitted without violating the accused's right against self-incrimination.
ObservationThe Supreme Court observed that information given by an accused person leading to the discovery of a fact could be admissible in evidence under Section 27. The Court clarified that if the information is not incriminatory to the person giving it, the question of it contravening Article 20(3) does not arise. The Court emphasized that self-incriminatory information provided voluntarily, without any coercion, does not breach the constitutional protections provided to the accused.
Additionally, the Court stated that the admissibility of such evidence is contingent upon it leading to the discovery of facts that are exclusively known to the accused. If the evidence is found in a public place or is already known to the investigating officer, its significance is inconsequential.
DecisionThe Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. It ruled that the provisions do not violate Article 20(3) as long as the information was provided without compulsion. The evidence obtained through the accused’s statement, which led to the discovery of the firearms, was deemed admissible, and the conviction was affirmed.