The discovery of an object as a result of information provided by an accused person is admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, but any statement made by the accused that connects the object with the offence is inadmissible.

Jaganmohan Reddy, J

[1] Three persons, Narayan, Sopan and Lakshman, who are the appellants before us were charged for the murder of one Jivan Rao on 11.11.1950, in a field known as Farkandi in the village of Mungaloore. The story of the prosecution is that Jivan Rao was going to Ambadh village on a horse-back, accompanied by P.W. 1, Bhawane. After crossing the border of the village from which they were proceeding, Jivan Rao was accosted by Narayan who came and caught hold of the reins of the horse on which Jivan Rao was riding & stopped him from proceeding further. Jivan Rao apprehending danger apparently looked behind & observed Sopan & Lakshman running towards him from behind, and finding that these people were chasing him, he got down from the horse and ran towards the field known as Farkandhi belonging to Venkat Rao. It is further alleged that on this field Sopan and Narayan caught hold of Jivan Rao and brought him down and Lakshman inflicted injuries on him with an axe in consequence of which Jivan Rao died. Information of the occurrence was given by Bhawane to the Police Patel, Saheb Rao. P.W. 13 made a report (Ex. 2) the same day, on the basis of which the First Information Report dated 12.11.1950, was issued and sent to the Court by post reaching it on 14.11.1950. The accused Sopan and Narayan were arrested on 13.11.1950, and the accused Lakshman was arrested on 25.11.1950. Later, as a result of the investigation, Venkat Rao who was also found to have had something to do with the offence was included in the challan as an absconding accused. The inquest (Panchnama) on the dead body was made on 13.11.1950 (Ex. 1). On the same day the axe, alleged to have bean used for inflicting injuries on the deceased was discovered as a consequence of the information alleged to have been given by the accused and a Panchnama (Ex. 3) was made relating to this discovery on the same day. Panchnamas (Exs. 5, 6 and 9) relating to the seizure of shirt and two dhoties belonging to the accused were also made. After the investigation was completed a challan was filed on 25.12.1950.

The accused pleaded not guilty. At the trial the prosecution examined 14 witnesses and marked the evidence of the Doctor recorded in the enquiring Court and the accused examined 5 witnesses. After the defence evidence was over, the Court acting under Section 540, Criminal P.C., examined four witnesses. It may here be stated that the Committing Magistrate ordered the striking out of the name of the absconding accused, Venkat Rao, from the challan against which a revision was filed by the prosecution before the Sessions Judge who has made a reference recommending to this Court that the revision should be allowed and the order of the Committing Magistrate set aside. The revision is also before us for consideration which will be dealt with separately.

[2] The learned Sessions Judge, on the evidence on record held all the three accused guilty of the murder of Jivan Rao under Section 302, Penal Code, but preferred not to give them the maximum sentence allowed by law as according to the Sessions Judge they appeared to him to be hired assassins. It is against this conviction and sentence that the accused have appealed.

[3] We have heard the arguments of the learned Advocate for the accused and the Public Prosecutor in extenso. The main contentions of the learned Advocate for the accused may be summarised as under.

1. That the First Information Report mentions an axe being used although P.W. 1, Bhawane states specifically that he has not observed an axe in the hands of any accused;

2. That the discovery relating to the axe is not admissible under Section 27, Evidence Act;

3. That the evidence of conspiracy or motive is totally unreliable;

4. That there are material discrepancies in the statements of the eye-witnesses with regard to the actual occurrence;

5. That even if it be conceded for the sake of argument that it is proved that Lakshman inflicted injuries on Jivan R