( 1 ) I have had the advantage of perusing the judgment of my learned brother. The facts of the case have been set out fully in the judgment about to be pronounced and it would be unnecessary to reiterate them.

( 2 ) WHILE agreeing with the conviction and sentence proposed to be passed against the accused, there are, however, two matters to which I wish to address myself, viz. , (1) to what extent is the statement of the accused in Ex. P-1g admissible in evidence, and (2) what is the scope of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. I would not after the authoritative and weighty pronouncement of the Judicial Committee in Pulukuri Kottayya v. Emperor AIR 1947 PC 67, have ventured to examine the whole matter as if it was res Integra, but having regard to the observations of any brother Sanjeeva Row Nayudu expressing doubts on that judgment, J. hasten, with the greatest respect, to say that I am unable to find myself in agreement with him.

( 3 ) ON the first question, it may be stated that Ex. P-4 is the F. I. R. relating to the murder of Vanga Venkati issued 011 the information given by his wife, P. W. 16, Veeramma in Ex. P-5 on 27-6-1955 at 7-15 A. M. The Investigating Officer, Deendayal, P

Click Here to Read the rest of this document