Section 27 evidence limits and Section 114 inference: recovery alone did not prove theft or guilty possession.

Under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, only the portion of an accused's statement that is the immediate and distinct cause of discovery is admissible; the part saying the accused had taken the drums from the port premises was treated as past history of the offence and excluded. On the remaining material, the recovery showed only that the accused knew where the drums were lying, not that they were in his exclusive control or concealment. The SC held that, because an innocent explanation remained possible, no safe inference under Section 114, Illustration (a) could be drawn that he was the thief or a receiver of stolen property, and the conviction was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) What part of the accused's statement was admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; and (ii) whether the admissible evidence and the discovery of the drums justified an inference under Section 114, Illustration (a) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 that the accused was the thief or a receiver of stolen property.

Issue (i): What part of the accused's statement was admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Analysis: Section 27 permits proof only of so much of the information given by an accused in police custody as relates distinctly to the fact discovered. The fact discovered includes the object recovered, the place of recovery, and the accused's knowledge of the place. But the admissible portion is confined to the immediate and proximate cause of discovery. The words stating that the accused had taken the drums out from the port premises were not the distinct cause of discovery and amounted to the past history of the offence. That portion was inadmissible and had to be excluded.

Conclusion: Only the portion identifying the place of deposit of the drums was admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the remaining confessionary part was inadmissible.

Issue (ii): Whether the admissible evidence and the discovery of the drums justified an inference under Section 114, Illustration (a) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 that the accused was the thief or a receiver of stolen property.

Analysis: After excluding the inadmissible portion, the remaining material showed only that the accused knew where the drums were lying and led to their recovery from an , accessible place. The drums were found in a Musafirkhana, not in a place shown to be under the accused's exclusive control or concealment. On these facts, more than one hypothesis was possible: the accused may have deposited the drums, or he may only have known of their location. The second hypothesis was consistent with innocence, so the presumption of guilt could not safely arise.

Conclusion: The inference under Section 114, Illustration (a) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was not warranted, and the accused was entitled to the benefit of doubt.

Final Conclusion: The conviction was set aside and the accused was acquitted because the admissible part of the disclosure was insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable inference.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, only that part of an accused's statement which is the immediate and distinct cause of discovery is admissible, and a presumption of guilt from discovery of stolen property cannot be drawn unless the surrounding circumstances make guilt the necessary and exclusive inference.

---