An order of the Sessions Judge marking the voluntary statements of the petitioners and admitting them in evidence is challenged in this revision petition.

2. The petitioners herein were arrested for an offence punishable mainly under Section 302 r/w Section 149 of IPC and other minor offences. A charge sheet was presented against them in Sessions Case No.64/2012. While the Trial Court was recording the evidence of PW26 ' the Investigating Officer, the voluntary statement of the petitioners were admitted in evidence and all those statements were marked as Exs.P26 to 30. It is this order of the learned Sessions Judge that is questioned in this revision petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned High Court Government Pleader.

4. A perusal of the voluntary statements produced by the petitioners reveal that on their arrest, PW26- the Investigating Officer recorded the said statements on 08.12.2012 and 10.03.2012. In the said statements, the petitioners said to have confessed commission of the murder, narrated the part played by each of them in causing death and the weapon used etc., and their abscondance from the place of incident. Any how scrutiny of all these voluntary statements does not reveal any discovery in pursuance of the facts disclosed.

5. The learned Sessions Judge has referred to the decision of the Apex Court reported in (2013) 4 Crimes SC 148. But the names of the parties in the decision cited is not mentioned in the said order. Whenever the judgments of the Higher Courts are referred to by the counsel, it appears proper to state the names of the parties and also the law journal in which it is reported, to enable the Court to search it for reference.

6. At the first instance, it would be proper to refer to the provisions of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Relevant portion is extracted hereunder for the sake of convenience.

' Section 25:Confession to police officer not to be proved: No confession made to a police officer, shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.'

The aforesaid provision makes an exception to the admissibility of the admissions and confessions in respect of the crime committed. If the accused is in police custody and a confession is recorded, such a confession cannot be proved as against the person accused of such an offence and it incorporates the principle underlying in Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution.

7. The provisions of Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 relate to a confession made by an accused while he is in custody, not to a police officer but to any other person. Therefore, even if a confession is made by an accused while he is in police custody to a person other than the police officer, the aforesaid provision prohibits acceptance of such a confession.

8. The only exception relating to the confessional statement is under the provision of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and it is extracted hereunder for the sake of convenience.

' Section 27: How much of information received from accused may be proved: 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.'

9. Under the aforesaid provision, whenever the accused furnishes any information to a police officer while he is in custody, such information if leads to a discovery in pursuance of the statement made, the fact of recovery could be accepted as evidence.

10. On this aspect of the matter, the Apex Court has an occasion to consider the provisions of Sections 24 to 30 of the Indian Evidence Act in a decision reported in AIR 1966 SC 119 (Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar).

11. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:

' A confession or an admission is evidence against the maker of it, if its