SOME IMPORTANT CASE DECISIONS ON SECTION 27 OF THE EVIDENCE ORDINANCE

1. Under Section 5 of the Evidence Ordinance one can lead evidence only in respect of a fact in issue or a relevant fact only.

2. Section 27 discusses about the relevancy of a statement made by an accused in the course of an investigation.

3. Generally a statement made by an accused person to the police is inadmissible against him. Section 27 is an exception to this rule.

4. Accordingly when a fact has been discovered by the police in the course of investigations based on a statement made by an accused such portion of the statement which led to the discovery is admissible.

5. A statement made by an accused may be exculpatory where he does not admit to the commission of an offence. Or it may be incriminating where he admits the commission or where an inference can be drawn against him regarding the commission.

6. In leading evidence under section 27 of the Ordinance you cannot mark the whole statement made by the accused. Today some courts admit the prosecution to mark the whole staement 1st and then the portion. This is a wrong practice and ought to be stopped.

7. Only the portion that led to the discovery can be marked. Even then if there are words whereby the accused has admitted committing the actor which suggest the inference he committed the Act such words must e deleted.

1. Q V Tennekoon 60 NLR 313

2. Q v Albert 66 NLR 543

3. R v Biddharakkitha 63 NLR 433

4. Q v Ramasamy 66 NLR 265

5. Edin Singho v Queen 69 NLR 353

6. K v Sugathapala 69 NLR 457

7. Q v Piyadasa 72 NLR 434

8. Q v Jayasinghe 71 NLR 574

9. Petersingham v Q 73 NLR 537

10. Nallathamby v Muthukrishnan 74 NLR 95

11. Nandasena v Republic 1978 79 2 SLR 235