https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457577 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. en-us Tue, 09 Sep 1975 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Sep 2024 17:58:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457577 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 09 Sep 1975 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457577