Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act: Discovery of Facts and BSA Section 23
Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 concerns a narrow exception to the restrictions on proving statements made by an accused person in police custody. It allows only the part of information that relates distinctly to a fact actually discovered to be proved. For proceedings governed by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), the corresponding rule is found in the proviso to Section 23(2).
What did Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act say?
The provision stated:
Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police-officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.
In simple terms, if information supplied by an accused in police custody leads to the discovery of a fact, the prosecution may prove only the relevant portion of that information, subject to the legal requirements. The entire confession does not become admissible merely because an object was recovered.
Present provision: BSA Section 23(2) proviso
Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 deals with confessions to police officers and confessions made in police custody. Sub-section (1) prohibits proof of a confession made to a police officer against an accused. Sub-section (2) generally excludes confessions made while in police custody unless made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. Its proviso preserves the limited discovery-of-facts rule formerly contained in Section 27.
The discovery proviso is an exception of restricted scope. It does not dispense with proof of custody, the discovery, the connection between the information and the discovery, or the reliability of the evidence.
Essential requirements for admissibility
- Accused and police custody: The information must come from a person accused of an offence while in police custody. Formal arrest is not always the sole test of custody; the actual circumstances matter.
- Information supplied: The investigating agency must establish what information was given and by whom.
- Discovery in consequence: A fact must be discovered as a consequence of that information. A mere statement without a resulting discovery is insufficient.
- Distinct relationship: Only the words that relate distinctly to the fact discovered are provable. Unrelated admissions of guilt remain outside this exception.
- Proof in court: Witness testimony, recovery records, the location, and other surrounding evidence remain subject to judicial scrutiny.
Meaning of a "fact discovered"
The expression may include the physical object found, the place where it was found, and the accused person's knowledge of its location, where those matters are proved. The court examines whether the information genuinely led to a discovery rather than merely confirming something already known to investigators.
Practical example: recovery of a weapon
Suppose an accused in police custody says, "I hid the knife beneath the stones near the old bridge," and the police then find the knife at that location. The portion of the statement identifying the hidden knife and its location may be admissible if the statutory conditions are established. An additional statement such as "I used that knife to commit the murder" does not become admissible under the discovery exception merely because the knife was recovered.
Whether a particular recovery is genuine and what weight it deserves depend on the facts, chain of custody, corroboration, and the court's evaluation of the evidence.
How Sections 25, 26 and 27 worked together
| Old Evidence Act provision | Rule | Current BSA reference |
|---|---|---|
| Section 25 | Confession to a police officer cannot be proved against an accused. | Section 23(1) |
| Section 26 | Confession while in police custody is generally excluded unless made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. | Section 23(2) |
| Section 27 | Only information distinctly related to a fact discovered in consequence of it may be proved. | Proviso to Section 23(2) |
Investigation and evidentiary safeguards
A disclosure statement or recovery memo is not automatically conclusive. Courts may examine whether the discovery preceded the statement, whether the location was already known, the presence and credibility of witnesses, handling of seized articles, and inconsistencies in the investigation. The prosecution must prove its case according to the applicable standard; the discovery exception alone does not establish guilt.
The India Code repository provides the official text of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Readers may also consult the Ministry of Home Affairs for official information on the new criminal laws.
Frequently asked questions
Is the entire confession admissible after recovery?
No. Only the portion distinctly related to the discovered fact can be proved under this exception.
Does Section 27 still apply to every new criminal case?
No. The BSA governs proceedings within its temporal scope from 1 July 2024, subject to savings provisions. Its corresponding discovery rule appears in the proviso to Section 23(2).
Can recovery evidence alone prove the offence?
Not necessarily. Recovery is evaluated alongside the remaining admissible evidence and the prosecution's burden of proof.
Must police establish that the discovery followed the information?
Yes. The causal connection between the information and the discovery is central to the statutory exception.
This article is a general explanation of evidence law and does not replace advice on the facts of an individual case. Updated: 20 October 2026.