The Hon’ble Supreme Court recently in Perumal Raja @ Perumal v. State, Rep. by Inspector of Police [2024] 1 S.C.R. 87 : 2024 INSC 13 summarized the principles governing admissibility of evidence under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, and held that expression ‘custody’ under Section 27 of the Evidence Act does not mean formal custody. It includes any kind of restriction, restraint or even surveillance by the police. Even if the accused was not formally arrested at the time of giving information, the accused ought to be deemed, for all practical purposes, in the custody of the police. And therefore, any incriminating material discovered on a basis of a statement given by an accused to the police is admissible even if the accused was not formally arrested.
The Court further elaborated on the principles governing admissibility of evidence under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act in the following words:
“Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a confession made to a police officer is prohibited and cannot be admitted in evidence. Section 26 of the Evidence Act provides that no confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer shall be proved against such person, unless it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. Section 27 of the Evidence Act is an exception to Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. It makes that part of the statement which distinctly leads to discovery of a fact in consequence of the information received from a person accused of an offence, to the extent it distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered, admissible in evidence against the accused. The fact which is discovered as a consequence of the information given is admissible in evidence. Further, the fact discovered must lead to recovery of a physical object and only that information which distinctly relates to that discovery can be proved. Section 27 of the Evidence Act is based on the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events – a fact is actually discovered in consequence of the information given, which results in recovery of a physical object. The facts discovered and the recovery is an assurance that the information given by a person accused of the offence can be relied.”