Question

When the accused states, "I will produce the share which I gave received in such and such robbery" which of the following are not admissible with regard to Section 25, Indian Evidence Act?
I. An admission that there was a robbery
II. An admission that the accused took part in it
III. An admission that he got part of the property
IV. A statement as to where the property is

• A. I, II and III
• B. III and IV
• C. II, III and IV
• D. All of them

Hint:

The 'discovery' rule in Section 27 is a narrow exception to the general bar on confessions to police. Only the part of the statement that directly points to the discovered object (e.g., "the knife is hidden under the bridge") is admissible, not the part confessing the crime itself (e.g., "I used that knife to kill him").

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

This question involves the interplay between Section 25 and Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Section 25: Makes any confession made to a police officer inadmissible. Statements I, II, and III are confessions of guilt (admitting to the robbery, participation, and receiving proceeds). As such, they are inadmissible.
Section 27: Provides an exception. It allows "so much of such information... as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered" to be proved. The fact discovered here is the 'share' (the property). The information leading to this discovery is the statement about where the property is and the willingness to produce it. Therefore, Statement IV, which leads to the discovery, is admissible.
The question asks what is not admissible. Statements I, II, and III, which are pure confessions of the crime, are not admissible.