IMPORTANT POINT
Merely because disclosure made by accused is translated from one language to another language and recorded in a third language, it cannot be contended that it is not admissible in evidence, if translator comes forward and gives evidence in the case.

JUDGMENT

P.B. Suresh Kumar, J.—The sole accused in S.C. No.599 of 2012 on the files of the IV Additional Sessions Court, Thrissur is the appellant in this appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code). He stands convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections 449, 302 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code (the IPC).

2. One Jithesh, who gave evidence in the proceedings as PW1 made arrangements for starting a hollow bricks manufacturing unit at a place called Aalumthai on 11.03.2012 and engaged the deceased Pradeep Roy @ Dheeru, a native of West Bengal for the said purpose. The deceased was introduced to PW1 by the accused, Sanath Roy @ Sonu, who is also a native of West Bengal. On 11.03.2012, when PW1 arrived at the unit at about 5.30 a.m. for conducting a religious ceremony in connection with the opening of the unit, he found Dheeru lying on the floor of the office room of the unit in a pool of blood with a cut injury on his neck. On the basis of the information furnished by PW1, Kunnamkulam Police registered a case on the same day under Section 302 IPC. The investigation of the case was taken up later by PW17, the Circle Inspector of Police, Kunnamkulam. In the course of investigation, PW17 arrested the accused, effected seizure of various objects based on the information stated to have been furnished by the accused and laid the final report in the case alleging that on 10.03.2012 between 10.45 and 11 p.m., with a view to appropriate the money borrowed by Dheeru, the accused trespassed into the office room of the unit, caused the death of Dheeru by inflicting a cut injury on his neck and robbed his mobile phones and purse containing Rs.16,500/-. The offences alleged were the offences punishable under Sections 449, 302 and 397 IPC. On committing the case for trial, since the accused denied the charge framed and read over to him by the Court of Session, the prosecution examined 21 witnesses on their side as PWs 1 to 21 and proved through them Exts.P1 to P24 documents. MOs 1 to 7 are the material objects identified by the witnesses. As the Court of Session did not find the case to be one fit for acquittal under Section 232 of the Code, the accused was called upon to enter on his defence, and since the accused did not adduce any evidence, he was convicted and sentenced based on the evidence adduced by the prosecution, after affording the accused an opportunity to explain the incriminating circumstances appeared against him in the evidence let in by the prosecution. As noted, the accused is aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed on him.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant did not challenge the finding rendered by the Court of Session that it is a case of homicide. Instead, his attempt was only to establish that satisfactory evidence has not been let in by the prosecution to prove that it is the accused who caused the death of Dheeru. It was pointed out by the learned counsel that the only evidence relied on by the prosecution to prove that it was the accused who caused the death of Dheeru, is the oral evidence of PW3 and the disclosures stated to have been made by the accused to PW17 while in custody on the basis of which MO4 chopper and cash amounting to Rs.16,500/-, MO5 and MO6 mobile phones, MO1 purse and MO2 identity card were seized, which are admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act (the Evidence Act). According to the learned counsel, the disclosures alleged to have been made by the accused to PW17 as referred to above are not admissible in evidence inasmuch as PW17 has not deposed the exact particulars of the disclosures made by the accused to him in the language spoken to by the accused nor have the same been recorded in the contemporaneous mahazars prepared while effecting the seizures. It was argued by the learned counsel that inasmuch as the accused was no