JUDGMENT - S.N. KHATRI, J.:---[The following portion of the judgment is reported as per the directions of His Lordship]

xxx xxx xxx

31-A. Before parting with the evidence on recoveries made by the police in consequence of information given by the accused, we would like to make some observations on the omission of the learned Sessions Judge to carefully dissect from the rest, the portion of the accused's statement which would attract section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The panchnama in question are Exhibits 90 and 80. Exhibit 90 relates to the statement made by the accused at about 4.00 p.m. on 22nd August, 1984, offering the police to take to the shops of the jewellers where he had pawned the silver anklets and the Mohanmal (articles 15 and 16). Exhibit 80 is the panchnama of the accused's statement made by him on the same day at 8.15 p.m. offering to lead the police to the shop of the jeweller with whom he had pawned the gold chain Article 17. A perusal of these two panchnamas will show that the learned Judge has admitted grossly incriminating statements of the accused which are clearly beyond the ambit of section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. For example in Exhibit 90, the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document