19 24. Thereafter, in State of Karnataka vs. David Rozario and another 8, this Court held that information which is otherwise admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act would become inadmissible, if it did not come from a person in the ‘custody of a police officer’ or came from a person ‘not in the custody of a police officer’. It was further held that what is admissible is the information and not the opinion formed on it by the police officer and, in other words, the exact information given by the accused while in ‘custody’ which led to recovery of the articles has to be proved. The two essential requirements, per this Court, are that: (i) the person giving the information must be ‘accused of an offence’; and (ii) he must be in ‘police custody’. 25. Again, in Ashish Jain vs. Makrand Singh and others 9, this Court held that once a confessional statement of the accused is found, on facts, to be involuntary, it would be hit by Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, rendering such a confession inadmissible. It was further noted that there is an embargo on accepting self-incriminatory evidence, but if it leads to the recovery of material objects in relation to a crime, it is most often taken to hold evidentiary value as per the circumstances of each case. This Court further cautioned that if such a statement is made under undue pressure and compulsion from the Investigating Officer, the evidentiary value of such a statement leading to the recovery is nullified. 8 9 (2002) 7 SCC 728 (2019) 3 SCC 770