TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the conviction could be sustained on the basis of the alleged recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the surrounding corroborative material.
Analysis: The admissibility and evidentiary value of information leading to discovery under Section 27 depend upon a genuine discovery of a relevant fact in consequence of information given by an accused in police custody, with only that part of the information being provable which distinctly relates to the fact discovered. Where the recovery witnesses do not support the seizure, that circumstance by itself does not nullify recovery evidence if the investigating officer's testimony is reliable. In the present case, however, the alleged recovery was surrounded by serious infirmities: the weapon was recovered from an place close to the scene, the custody of the empty cartridges and bullets was not satisfactorily proved, sealing and deposit of the articles were not consistently established, and the material did not reliably connect the recovered pistol with the offence.
Conclusion: The prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt, and the conviction could not be sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: A recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is reliable only when the discovery is genuinely proved and the recovered object is satisfactorily linked to the crime; unexplained custody gaps and inconsistencies in the handling of physical evidence can render the prosecution case unsafe.
TaxTMI 
