The court emphasized the admissibility of disclosure statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and inferred the appellants' guilt based on the lack of explanation for the child's presence in their custody.

V.K. Jain, J.

1. On 18.7.2009, the complainant Ravinder came to PS Sultan Puri and lodged an FIR, stating therein that his child ‘M’, aged about 4 years, had gone to market along with his sister-in-law Jyoti, but got separated from Jyoti on account of crowd in the market, and he had not been able to trace her. An FIR under Section 363 of IPC was registered on the aforesaid complaint made by Shri Ravinder Kumar.

2. On 08.05.2010, SI Naveen Kumar of AATS (West), Paschim Vihar, received an information that a person, namely, Shyam Lal, residing in Village Sodawas, District Alwar or Rajasthan was engaged in procuring/purchasing girls from Delhi and used to sell them off in the said village as also in village Girwas of the same District. On this information, a raiding party consisting of police officers went to Village Sodawas, along with secret informer. One Shyam Lal was apprehended on being pointed out by the secret informer and was interrogated. Shyam Lal took them to another house in the same village. The appellants were found sitting outside the house. Both of them were apprehended on being pointed out by Shyam Lal and were interrogated. Pursuant to the disclosure statements made by them to the police, a child, namely, ‘M’ was found inside the house, outside which the appellants Veena and Ashok @ Pappu, who are sister and brother, were found sitting.

3. As many as six persons, three sent for trial, but three persons, namely, Vimla, Mukesh and Kartar were discharged by the Trial Court, whereas Shyam Lal died during the course of trial. Vide impugned judgment dated 20.09.2012 and Order on Sentence dated 21.09.2012, the appellants were convicted under Section 368 and 373 if IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years each and to pay fine of Rs 10,000/- each or to undergo RI for two months in default under Section 368. Identical punishment was awarded to them under Section 373 of IPC. Being aggrieved, the appellants are before this Court by way of this appeal.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that no documentary evidence has been collected by the Investigating Officer to prove that the house from which the child is alleged to have been recovered belonged to or was possessed by either of the appellants. They have also pointed out that no witness from the village has been examined to prove that the aforesaid house was occupied by the appellants. The contention is that in the absence of such evidence, it cannot be said that the child was recovered from the custody of the appellants.

5. The deposition of PW-7 SI Naveen Kumar which finds full corroboration from the deposition of PW-8 Head Constable Dilbag Singh would show that the appellants, who were found sitting outside the house in village Sodawas made the disclosure statements Ex.PW-7/G and PW-7/H. In her disclosure statement, the appellant Veena, inter alia, stated that she could get the child ‘M’ who was with her recovered. In his disclosure statement Ex.PW-7/H, the appellant Ashok Kumar made an identical statement to the police. Since pursuant to the statements made by the appellants, the police discovered the fact that a child had been kept in the house outside which they were sitting and the child ‘M’ was actually recovered by the police from a house in village Sodawas pursuant thereto, the said statements are admissible in evidence under Section 27 of Evidence Act, to the extent indicated above.

6. In State of Maharashtra vs. Suresh (2000) 1 SCC 471, the respondent accused, while in police custody, made a statement stating therein that the dead body was kept concealed in the field; he would take it out and produce the same. The dead body was thereafter recovered, as pointed out by the respondent. The High Court, however, did not rely upon the aforesaid circumstance inter alia on the reasoning that two other possibilities, one being that the respondents could have seen someone else placing the dead body at that spot