 Good evening everyone and today's session would be whether recovery evidence by itself is a substantive evidence. And like we have already doing a lot of series with judges. Meera Ankumar, a former judge from Kerala High Court. And his short topics have been very well received because they are concise and to the point with illustrative illustrations as well as the judicial precedents on that. We are always enlightened whenever just as Ankumar comes on our platform. We have also seen that his writing skills, various topics of the live law are also well received. And we are really indebted on behalf of Beyond Law CLC and all those participants that he keeps on sharing his blessings and knowledge with us. So when we discuss about whether recovery evidence by itself is a substantive evidence. The natural question which arises out in the mind of a law lawyer or a judge is whether recovery evidence falling under section 27 of the independent back is a substantive evidence or a cooperative evidence. Since there are few youngsters, we would also ask you to make us understand what is actually section 27 and then we can take this question over to you. Thank you. Good evening, friends. See whether the question posed by you is boils down to this whether recovery evidence by itself is substantive evidence. Now, I have already spoken on the topic of section 27 of the Evidence Act, which has been treated as a proviso to sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. All of you know that any confession made by a person accused of an offense to a police officer cannot be used against him because of the interdict under section 25 of the Evidence Act. Likewise, any confession made by an accused person while in the custody of a police officer is also tabooed by section 26 of the Evidence Act. Then comes section 27 of the Evidence Act. See the section is very rarely only you find a section starting as a proviso. Normally you will find a substantive section and then a proviso to that section. Here the section itself starts as a proviso. Section 27 and read the section. How much of information received from accused may be proved. Provided that that is a proviso to section 25 and 26. 25 says no confession made to a police officer shall be used against an accused person. 26 no confession made while in the custody of a police officer is admissible. Then comes 27. Provided that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offense in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information whether it amounts to a confession or not as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved. Beautifully drafted section and beautifully explained by Sir John Beaumont in the celebrated decision. What do you mean by substantive evidence? Substantive evidence is an evidence which can stand by itself. It can stand on its own without the aid of any other evidence as distinct from a corroborative evidence. Corroborative evidence means because evidence which has to support some main evidence of substantive evidence is an evidence which which has an independent existence. It can stand by itself. Now the question is whether a recovery falling under section 27 can constitute substantive evidence or whether it is only a corroborative evidence. Now the answer to this question can only be in the negative in the majority of cases but positive in certain limited categories of cases. The answer to this question is given by Pulucuri Kotae itself by Sir John Beaumont where yes the Leonard judge has conceived all possible arguments based on section 27. Beautiful judgment. Now supposing I will say that the answer can be negative in most of the cases. It cannot be substantive evidence in most cases. Supposing an accused is having in his possession or is concealing in his room an unlicensed firearm or a narcotic substance that was that by itself his possession or custody of the unlicensed firearm or narcotic drug by itself is an effect. Because Homs act 1959 says no person shall keep in possession a firearm without a license. Likewise the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substance act 1985 says that no person shall possess a narcotic drug and narcotic drug has been defined. Supposing a person is found to be in possession of opium and he has concealed it in his room. Then he can be said to be in possession of narcotic drug in contravention of the provisions of the NDP act. Likewise if a person is found to be in possession of an unlicensed gun kept by him kept concealed by him hidden by him then he can be said to be in possession of a firearm. Contrary to the provisions of the Homs act 1959. That itself is an offense. It is in those limited categories of cases that in the mere possession or concealment can amount to an offense. Therefore it is only in those cases that recovery evidence becomes substantive evidence. It can stand on its own independent evidence. There need not be any corroborate evidence. But in the good majority of cases what happens is the accused says that knives that dagger have concealed in such and such place. And the consequent on his statement the police party either led by the accused or without the accused goes to that particular place disclosed by the accused and takes out the weapon from the place of concealment. In such a case what is it that is proved by 27 recovery. What is proved is accused at a concealed or hidden a knife at a dagger at a particular place and he alone was knowing that place of concealment. Consequent on his disclosure statement that dagger is recovered from that can we jump into the conclusion that he is the murderer in a murder case. No. They said 27 recovery only prove that this man was having the exclusive knowledge about the place of concealment of that weapon. That's all. Then whether that weapon was used in the commission of the offense for which he is charged will have to be separately proved. Therefore this recovery evidence is only a corroborative piece of evidence not a substantive evidence because it is not prove the offense. The offense is not proved only his knowledge about the place of concealment of the weapon alone has been proved. That is why in good majority of cases what is proved is the place of concealment of the weapon and the recovery of the weapon. From that alone court cannot jump into the conclusion that he is the person who committed the murder. No. That will have to be separately used and his confession that the dagger with which I killed so and so. The dagger with which I killed so and so. That for that confession is not admissible. That is a confession which is not admissible. That will have to be excluded from consideration. This is the beautiful verdict of Kulukuri Kothaya. Now hence a recovery of any object or substance on the basis of the disclosure statement of the accused from a place where he has hidden them. Would itself establish this complex in a case where the disclosure is about the possession or concealment of a unlicensed firearm or a narcotic drug. But nothing and nothing further need be proved in that case. He has already shown his possession of a unlicensed firearm or a narcotic drug. Supposing what is concealed by him is only a dagger. The recovery evidence only proves that the accused had hidden the dagger at a secret place. From that alone it cannot be straight away concluded that he is the murderer or the culprit. The prosecution will have to further prove that the dagger recovered on the basis of the disclosure statement of the accused was used by the accused for the commission of the offense. This proof can either be by direct or circumstantial evidence. Now let us examine the relevant passage in Kulukuri Kothaya. There are two passages. One towards the end of paragraph 11. This is what Justice Sir John Bumon speaking for the Privy Council observed. Except in cases in which the possession or concealment of an object constitutes the gist of the offense charged except in those limited number of different categories of cases. It can seldom happen that information relating to the discovery of a fact forms the foundation of the prosecution case. So except in those limited category of cases, it cannot form the basis for foundation or basis for the prosecution case. There is only one link in the chain of proof and the other links must be in a manner allowed by law. This recovery of the weapon or for example it can be weapon, it can be dead body, it can be blood stained clothes and any such incrementing material. Recovery of such material will only show that he had concealed it at such and such place and he had knowledge about that place of concealment which was not known to the police. That's all. But from that alone, supposing a dead body is recovered, from that alone you cannot jump into the presumption, into the conclusion that he is the murderer. No. That will have to be separately proved by the prosecution. Again towards the end of paragraph 10 of Kulukuri Kothaya, the Privy Council speaking through Sir John Bumon observed as follows. Information supplied by a person in custody that I will produce a knife concealed in the roof of my house does not lead to the discovery of a knife. It is not discovery of a knife, discovery of the place of concealment of the knife that's all and very beautifully stated. The knife was discovered many years ago. It leads to the discovery of the fact that a knife is concealed in the house of the informant to his knowledge. And if the knife is proved to have been used in the commission of the offense, the fact discovered is very relevant. Therefore what is recovered is only a knife regarding the place of concealment of which was known to the accused and accused alone. That alone you cannot jump to the conclusion that he is the murderer. The fact that the knife was used for the commission of murder, for commission of the offense of murder will have to be separately proved by the prosecution. Beautifully stated by Sir John Bumon in Kulukuri Kothaya. This is the reason why the Supreme Court of India had also made the following pertinent observations. Number one, mere recovery of dead body either pointed out by the accused or recovered as a result of the disclosure statement made by him would not necessarily lead to the conclusion that he committed murder. There should be other substantive evidence or corroborative circumstances from which the court can raise a presumption that the accused was the offender. The same principle has been beautifully stated by the Supreme Court speaking through Justice Jail Kapoor. The other Jail was Raghubar Dayal. Paragraph 9 of Kanbi, Kanbi Karsal Jadav versus State of Gujarat. AIR 1966 Supreme Court 821 corresponding to 1966 criminal law journal 605. Jail Kapoor is the author of the journal. Second case. The discovery is a weak kind of evidence and cannot be wholly relied upon and a conviction such as he is matter cannot be based upon the discovery. Once the discovery fails, there will be literally nothing which would support the prosecution case. Beautifully stated by Justice V. S. Sirpurkar in paragraph 21 of Money versus State of Tamil Nadu. AIR 2008 Supreme Court 1021. P. P. Naulekar Justice P. P. Naulekar and Justice V. S. Sirpurkar Justice Sirpurkar being the author of the journal. Third instance is a recent case which was decided this month on 11-8 2003 in paragraph 22 of Manoj Kumar Soni versus State of Madhya Pradesh. Criminal appeal no. 1030. Bar 2023. Judges are Justice S. Devendra Bhatt and Deepangar Dutta. Justice Deepangar Dutta is the author of the journal. The aforesaid passage. In paragraph 22 of the verdict, the learned judges have quoted the aforesaid passage in Pulukuri Kota. Then in paragraph 21 it is observed as follows. A doubt looms. Can disclosure statements per se unaccumbred by any supporting evidence be deemed adequate to secure a conviction? We find it impossible. Although disclosure statements hold significance as a contributing factor in unredealing a case, in our opinion, they are not so strong. A piece of evidence sufficient on its own and without anything more to bring home the charges beyond reasonable doubt. No other enunciation is required. But there is one stress and then unfortunately made by a three judge bench of the Supreme Court. In paragraph 16 of Bijindar Elias Mandar versus State of Haryana AIR 2022 Supreme Court 406 corresponding to 2022 volume 1 SCC 92. Three judges. And Justice N.V. Ramana, Chief Justice Surya Khan, Hima Kohli. I have the three judges. The author of the judgment is Surya Khan, Justice Surya Khan. The observation is, it may be true that at times the court can convict and likely to be misunderstood, likely to be misunderstood. Because as we have discussed, as we have seen, it is only the few minority of cases where possession or concealment of the contraband substance by the accused itself is an offense. In such a case alone, the recovery evidence can form the sole basis that is substantive evidence without any corroborative piece of evidence for recording a conviction, not in cases like this. So everyone reading the judgment in that Manoj Kumar Soni, Bijindar Elias Mandar versus State of Haryana AIR 2022 Supreme Court 406 will have to bear this in mind that though there is an observation that it can form sole basis for a conviction in that particular facts of their case that observation was unwarranted, and it may go a long way towards helping the prosecution in a case where there is only a recovery of the place of concealment recovery of the object or the based on the knowledge of the accused regarding place of concealment. This distinction has to be borne in mind. The purpose of this webinar is to explain this distinction. There is only a few minority categories of cases where recovery evidence can form substantive evidence. In the good majority of cases, recovery evidence can only form a corroborative piece of evidence and there will have to be other evidence, other corroborative evidence to confirm the 27 recovery. That is why it is always said that 27 recovery by itself cannot form the sole basis for a conviction except in those limited categories of cases. That's all. This is my, the purpose of this short webinar. Thank you, friends. Thank you, sir. As usual, it was insightful. I just thought like any other participant who's watching that maybe we'll be only discussing section 27. But the subtle difference between substantive evidence and the corroborative evidence that will help the participants to understand this facet in a much better way. Thank you, sir.