Bavdekar, J.

(1) The appellants have been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum, of an offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years.

(2) The trial was by a jury and the jury by a majority of 3 to 2 found the appellants guilty of the offence. The principal point, which has been made against the conviction of the appellants, is the admissibility of statements made by all the appellants to the effect that they themselves had hidden the property. In the case of accused No. 5 none of the property was found in his house But he had made a statement stating that he had hidden a trunk in a dunghill of Berads. Mr. Mandgi who appears on behalf of the appellants says that the words forming part of the statements of the accused persons which attributed to them the authorship of the concealment are not admissible in evidence. In support of this contention he refers to our decisions in the case of STATE v. RANGRAO DNYANU, 53 Bom LR 834. We took that view following the ruling of the Privy Council case of KOTTAYA v. EMPEROR, 49 Bom LR 508 (PC). This view has also been taken by another Divi