What principle did Pulukuri Kottaya establish?

Only that part of a statement in police custody which directly leads to discovery of a physical fact is admissible under Section 27. The rest of the confession is not.

How is Section 27 different from Section 26?

Section 26 generally bars confessions to police when the accused is in custody. Section 27 is a narrow exception allowing facts discovered because of information given.

What is meant by 'discovery of fact'?

It means finding a tangible, physical object or place connected to the crime due to the accused’s information, such as a weapon or hidden article.

Does Section 27 admit the whole confession?

No. Only the specific portion that clearly relates to and causes the discovery is admissible. The rest stays inadmissible.

Why is this case still taught?

It is the leading case explaining the narrow scope of Section 27 and how courts must sever inadmissible confession parts from the discovery portion.

Pulukuri Kottaya v. King-Emperor (1946)

Privy Council (Judicial Committee) 1946 Leading case on Section 27 IEA Evidence Law ~7 min read

CASE_TITLE PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: Section 27 Evidence Act, discovery of fact, confession in custody SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: Section 26 Evidence Act, Section 162 CrPC, admissibility

Author: Gulzar Hashmi | Location: India | Publish Date: 10-May-2024 | Slug: pulukuri-kottaya-v-king-emperor-1946

Quick Summary

Pulukuri Kottaya (1946) is the classic case on Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. It says: the court can admit only that limited part of a statement made in police custody which clearly leads to the discovery of a physical fact (like a weapon). The rest of the confession stays out.

Bottom line: Sever the inadmissible confession. Save only the discovery-linked part.

```

Issues

Is a confession made in police custody admissible when it reveals the discovery of a weapon or item?
How should courts separate the admissible discovery part from the inadmissible confession?

Rules

Section 26, Evidence Act

Confession to police while in custody is generally inadmissible, unless made before a Magistrate.

Section 27, Evidence Act

A narrow exception: the part of the information that distinctly relates to the discovery of a physical fact may be proved.

Section 162, CrPC (Proviso)

Early statements to police and supply of copies are relevant for fair cross-examination and trial fairness.

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline

Charge: The appellants were tried for murder. Police recorded witness statements at different stages.

Records & Copies: A key witness asked for copies of early statements to cross-examine. There was concern about the Section 162 CrPC proviso.

Trial Court: Despite issues, the Sessions Judge believed the eyewitness story and convicted the accused.

High Court: The conviction was upheld on appeal.

Privy Council Appeal: The accused argued that their statements had been wrongly admitted, offending Sections 26 & 27 IEA.

Arguments

Appellants (Accused)

Confessions in custody are barred by Section 26; most parts are inadmissible.
Only a small part, if any, could be saved by Section 27—and only if it truly caused a discovery of a physical object.
Trial fairness suffered due to Section 162 CrPC lapses regarding early statements.

Respondent (Crown)

Some parts led to discovery (e.g., weapon/place). Those parts should be admissible under Section 27.
The overall eyewitness account was credible; convictions should stand.

Judgment

Held: Only the discovery-linked portion of a statement in police custody is admissible under Section 27. The rest of the confession remains excluded by Section 26. The admissible part must be tightly connected to finding a physical object or place, not a mere mental fact.

Result: Courts must sever the inadmissible confession and admit only the distinctly related discovery part.

Ratio Decidendi

Section 27 is a limited exception to Section 26. Only the information that distinctly relates to and causes the discovery of a physical fact is provable; narrative or self-inculpatory parts that do not lead to discovery are inadmissible.

Why It Matters

Protects the accused from coerced confessions.
Allows courts to use reliable discovery evidence.
Guides police to record only what leads to discovery, not full confessions.

Key Takeaways

Narrow Gate

Only discovery-linked lines pass through Section 27.

Physical Fact

The discovery must be of a tangible object/place.

Sever & Save

Sever inadmissible confession; save the discovery clause.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “S27 = Show → Spot → Seize”

Show — Accused gives info.
Spot — Police find the physical thing/place.
Seize — Only that info gets admitted.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Admissibility of confession in custody when it leads to discovery.

Rule

Sections 26 & 27 Evidence Act; Section 162 CrPC.

Application

Admit only the part that distinctly relates to discovery of a physical fact.

Conclusion

Sever the confession; save the discovery clause; exclude the rest.

Glossary

Confession in Custody: Statement made by an accused while under police control.
Discovery of Fact: Finding a tangible thing/place because of the accused’s information.
Severance: Cutting out inadmissible parts; keeping only the admissible portion.