Pulukuri Kotayya and Others vs. King-Emperor [1946 SCC OnLine PC 47]

…..Normally the section is brought into operation when a person in police custody produces from some place of concealment some object, such as a dead body, a weapon, or ornaments, said to be connected with the crime of which the informant is accused.

State of Rajasthan vs. Wakteng [(2007) 14 SCC 550]

17. So far as recovery of the sword is concerned, the same was not sent for any examination by the Forensic Science Laboratory and the report if any was not exhibited and even no question in that regard was put to the accused while he was examined under Section 313 of the Code.

Kusal Toppo and another vs. State of Jharkhand [(2019) 13 SCC 676]

24. …..Now coming to the limited aspect concerning appending weightage to their recovery of rope in furtherance of the statement of A-3, before the police under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

28. Coming back to the factual aspects of this case, on the basis of the above confession of Chanchal Bhaskar (A-3), the only recovery which was made was one rope, which was used in committing the offence, which the counsel rightly pointed, is a common material or thing which is available anywhere in the market or at every household. Further, we may note that, there is no investigation to link the rope recovered with the crime as no report concerning the forensic aspects of the fibre or any recovered strands are part of the record. Therefore, the major condition for application of Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not fulfilled. Accordingly, we cannot append any value to the confession of Chanchal Bhaskar (A-3).