Pulukuri Kottaya v King-Emperor

Facts

Nine accused were tried for rioting and murder arising from a factional village clash on 29 December 1944, supported by hostile eye-witnesses. During investigation the accused, while in police custody, made statements leading to the discovery of weapons and other objects. At trial the prosecution sought to prove not only the part of each statement pointing to where the object was hidden but also the part connecting the object to the crime (e.g. that it was used to stab the deceased). A breach of Section 162 CrPC also arose because the sub-inspector's recorded witness statements were not supplied to the defence until the fourth day of trial.

Issues

• How much of a statement made by an accused in police custody is admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act when it leads to the discovery of a fact?
• Whether a breach of Section 162 CrPC vitiated the trial or was a curable irregularity under Section 537 CrPC.

Arguments

For the accused (Mr Pritt) it was argued that only the information directly relating to the discovery itself is admissible, not the accompanying confession, and that the Section 162 breach could not be cured and the convictions must be quashed. For the Crown (Mr Megaw) it was contended that any information connecting the discovered objects to the crime was admissible under Section 27, and that procedural irregularities could be cured under Section 537 where no prejudice was shown.

Held

The Privy Council rejected the broad Madras High Court view of Section 27. It held that the section is a proviso to the bars in Sections 25 and 26 and admits only 'so much of such information... as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered'. The 'fact discovered' embraces the place from which the object is produced and the accused's knowledge of it, and the information must relate distinctly to that fact; information as to the past use or history of the object is not so related. Thus a statement 'I will produce a knife concealed in the roof of my house' is admissible, but the added words 'with which I stabbed A' are not. On the procedural point, the Court held the Section 162 breach was a curable irregularity under Section 537 because no prejudice resulted, and remitted the matter for the remaining admissible evidence to be assessed.

Ratio decidendi

Section 27 lifts the ban on confessions to police only to the extent that the information 'relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered'; the discoverable fact is the place of concealment and the accused's knowledge of it, so confessional words tying the object to the crime or describing its past use remain inadmissible.

Significance

The leading and most-followed authority on Section 27 IEA, repeatedly affirmed by the Supreme Court of India and treated as settled law on recovery and confessions to police. The principle now sits under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Section 23(1) BSA continues the bar on confessions in police custody (former S25-26 IEA) while the proviso to Section 23(2) BSA re-enacts the Section 27 'fact thereby discovered' exception, so the Pulukuri Kottaya test continues to govern admissibility of discovery statements under the new code.

Related