The Supreme Court of India has ruled that recovery of evidence at an accused’s instance becomes useless if the police already knew the facts. In a recent judgment delivered on October 8, 2025, the apex court discarded the accused’s alleged confession and subsequent recoveries as inadmissible and fabricated, highlighting that the police had prior knowledge of key facts even before the accused supposedly “disclosed” them.
Key Aspects of the Ruling-
Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act: Allows admissibility of information leading to discovery of facts given by an accused in police custody, but only the part distinctly relating to the discovery is admissible.
Police Prior Knowledge: If police already knew about the facts or location, recovery loses significance; courts view such confessions and recoveries with skepticism.
Fabrication Concerns: The court found the confession appeared scripted and recoveries were staged, raising grave doubts about authenticity.
Evidentiary Value: None of the recoveries had evidentiary value under the Evidence Act as facts weren’t discovered in consequence of voluntary statements but were already known to police.
Implications-
Judicial Scrutiny: Courts assess if discoveries genuinely stem from accused’s input or were already known.
Confessions to Police: Generally inadmissible under Sections 25 and 26 of Evidence Act; exceptions via Section 27 are narrow.
Accused’s Rights: Safeguards against coerced confessions are critical.
Observations by the Supreme Court-
A Confession That Tells You What the Police Already Knew Isn’t a Confession It’s a Confirmation of Fabrication.
The court criticized police manipulation, stating the entire sequence appeared staged to falsely implicate the accused.
The Supreme Court of India has underscored that recoveries made at an accused’s instance lose evidentiary value if the police already possessed knowledge of the facts. In a recent judgment, the court discarded the confession and subsequent recoveries as fabricated, highlighting the police’s prior awareness of key details. This ruling emphasizes the critical importance of novelty in information provided by the accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act for such evidence to be admissible. The decision reflects judicial skepticism towards potentially coerced or staged confessions and recoveries, reinforcing safeguards against police manipulation and stressing genuine discoveries must stem from the accused’s voluntary statements for evidentiary credibility.
