Section 27 IEA permits proof of so much of the information given by a person accused of an offence in police custody as relates DISTINCTLY:

1. Section 27 IEA carves out an exception to Sections 25-26 (which bar confessions to police and confessions in police custody not before magistrate): 'Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.' 2. Pulukuri Kottaya v. King Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67 — only the portion that DISTINCTLY relates to the DISCOVERY (i.e. discovery of a fact) is admissible; the rest is excluded. 3. Pre-conditions: (i) accused must be in police custody; (ii) information must lead to discovery; (iii) only the discovery-related part is admissible. 4. Hence option B is correct. _Source: Indian Penal Code 1860 / Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 / Indian Evidence Act 1872 (Bare Acts, indiacode.nic.in) — Indian Evidence Act, Section 27; Pulukuri Kottaya v. King Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67_