Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Disclosure Statement. - Strong proof of highest standard is required to prove that in- criminating material was recovered from an accused person in pursuance of a disclosure statement made by him. Three drums of lahan allegedly recovered from an accessible place in consequence of a dis510sure statement. Disclosure statement and their recovery not accepted. Conviction set aside. Disclosure statement - Place of recovery not mentioned in disclosure status. - Opium recov- ered on the disclosure statement of the accused. Statement did not talk of the "place" where the recovered opium was kept concealed. Information supplied by the accused leading to the recovery of the opium whether comes within the ambit of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Held that the discovery of the opium from the house of the accused was not in consequence of the information given by him in his disclosure statement. Disclosure statement - Exclusive possession not proved No: conviction. Accused was ac- quitted for three reasons. Firstly, the liquor was not concealed in such a manner that it could not be discovered by the police on a casual search of the accused's house so that its discovery cannot be regarded as having been made inconsequence of the disclosure statement. Secondly, it was held that it appeared, that the disclosure statement was concocted after the recovery of two tins containing liquor which must have resulted from the search carried out by the Constables. Thirdly, it could not be said that the liquor was recovered from the exclusive possession of the accused as his brothers were residing with him in the same house and anyone of them could have responsible for containing the liquor in !he Bharoli even though the accused may have held knowledge of the place of concealment. Disclosure statement by accused - Examination of Investigating Officer who recorded the statement not obligatory in order to prove the statement. - Section 27 nowhere lays down that to prove a disclosure statement to examine the investigation officer who interrogated the ac- cused was obligatory. What is required under Section 27 is that the person when he makes the disclosure statement should be accused of an offence and must be in the custody of a police officer. Even then only so much of the information whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered can be proved. Recovery in consequence of disclosure statement - Recovery could be made in ordinary search - No conviction. Where the bladder in question is alleged to have been recovered from a Bharoli in the cattle shed of the accused in consequence of the disclosure statement, the disclosure statement cannot be used against the accused for the simple reason, that the recovery could have been made by the police on the usual search of th6 premises and cannot be said to have been resulted from disclosure. Where there is no other evidence against the accused except the alleged disclosure statement, the recovery falls and the accused is entitled to acquittal.