MOHMED INAYATULLAH vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

The Supreme Court held that for the admissibility of information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, four conditions must be met: (1) discovery of a fact due to information from the accused, (2) the discovery must be deposed to, (3) the accused must be in police custody at the time of information, and (4) only the part of the information that distinctly relates to the discovered fact is admissible. The Court found that the appellant's statement about the location of the stolen drums was admissible, but the presumption of guilt under Section 114(a) could not be drawn as alternative hypotheses existed regarding the appellant's knowledge of the drums' location. Thus, the appeal was allowed, and the conviction was overturned.