Criminal evidence rules: delayed witness statements may be curable, but only discovery-linked disclosure is admissible under Section 27.

Delayed production of witness statements recorded during investigation under Section 162 CrPC did not vitiate the trial where no failure of justice or prejudice was shown; the lapse was treated as a curable irregularity under Section 537 CrPC. Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, only so much of an accused's information in police custody as distinctly relates to the fact discovered is admissible. The disclosure exception does not extend to the whole confession or to statements about past use of the object or the offence itself, so only discovery-related words could be proved and the remaining portions were inadmissible.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether delayed production of statements recorded during investigation under Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vitiated the trial or was a curable irregularity under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (ii) Whether, under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the whole of the confessional statements made in police custody were admissible or only the portion distinctly relating to the fact discovered.

Issue (i): Whether delayed production of statements recorded during investigation under Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vitiated the trial or was a curable irregularity under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Analysis: The statutory right to obtain prior statements for contradiction is valuable, but the breach did not, on the facts, cause prejudice. The witness statements recorded by the later investigating officer were supplied in time to enable effective use, and the earlier notebook was eventually produced. The Court treated the lapse as an irregularity occurring in an otherwise properly conducted trial and held that Section 537 applied where no failure of justice was shown.

Conclusion: The breach of Section 162 did not invalidate the trial and was cured under Section 537.

Issue (ii): Whether, under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the whole of the confessional statements made in police custody were admissible or only the portion distinctly relating to the fact discovered.

Analysis: Sections 25 and 26 bar confessions to police and confessions made in police custody, and Section 27 creates only a limited exception. The exception extends only to so much of the information as distinctly relates to the fact discovered, meaning the discovery of the object and the accused's knowledge of its concealment, not statements as to past use or the offence itself. On this basis, the larger portions of the confessions were inadmissible, and only the discovery-related words could be proved.

Conclusion: Only the portion of the statements distinctly relating to the discovery of the concealed articles was admissible; the rest was inadmissible.

Final Conclusion: The convictions could not stand on the record as treated by the High Court, and the matter had to be reconsidered on the admissible evidence alone after exclusion of the inadmissible confessional portions.

Ratio Decidendi: A breach of a mandatory procedural provision does not necessarily vitiate a trial if no failure of justice is shown, and under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act only the part of an accused's information that distinctly relates to the fact discovered is admissible, not the narrative of the offence or past use of the object discovered.

---