( 1 ) THE defence has therefore seriously challenged the extra judicial confession on the following grounds:- (1) that it was hit by section 24 of the Evidence Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as it was procured after inducement made that accused No. 1 would be saved by these persons if he told the truth and that such inducement proceeded from a person in authority viz. the Police Patel Dhula Kashna. (2) that it was hit by section 25 of the Act as it was a confessional statement made to a police officer and (3) that even the discovery part was not admissible as accused No. 1 was not in the police custody at the time when he made such a statement.

( 2 ) THE prosecution, however has relied on the fact that such a confession was made to a crowd and not to the Police Patel himself and that therefore it was not hit by section 24 or 25 of the Act. Mr. Vidyarthi also contended that in any event the information part which directly related to the discovery was admissible.

( 3 ) SECTIONS 24 to 30 of the Act deal with admissibility of confession i. e. a statement made by a person stating or suggesting that he had committed a crime. We have not to undertake a detailed analysis of various sections as in the case of State of U. P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya 1960 (Vol. 1) S. C. R. 14 at page 23 The Supreme Court on an analysis of sections 24 to 27 of the Act and section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has held that the following material propositions emerge:- (A) Whether a person is in custody or outside a confession made by him to a police officer or the making of which is procured by inducement thereat or promise having reference to the charge against him and proceeding from a person in authority is not provable against him in any proceeding in which he is charged with the commission of an offence. (b) A confession made by a person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer to a person other than a police officer is not provable in a proceeding in which he is charged with the commission of an offence unless it is made in the immediate persence of a Magistrate. (c) That part of the information given by a person whilst in police custody whether the information is confessional or otherwise which distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered but no more is provable in a proceeding in which he is charged with the commission of an offence. (d) A statement whether it amounts to a confession or not made by a person when he is not in custody to another person such latter person not being a police officer may be proved if it is otherwise relevant. (e) A statement made by a person to a police officer in the course of an investigation of an offence under Ch. XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot except to the extent permitted by section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act be used for any purpose at any enquiry or trial in respect of any offence under investigation at the time when the statement was made in which he is concerned as a person accused of an offence.

( 4 ) IT was also held that in all these sections the expression accused person in section 24 and the expression a person accused of any offence have the same connotation and describe the person against whom evidence is sought to be led in a criminal proceeding. The adjectival clause accused of any offence is therefore descriptive of the person against whom a confessional statement made by him is declared not provable and does not predicate a condition of that person at the time of making the statement for the applicability of the ban. The scheme thus appears to divide these cases in two classes:- (1) Confessional statements made by persons not in custody are admissible in evidence against such person in a criminal proceeding unless they are procured in the manner described in section 24 or made to a police officer (section 25) (2) while confessional statements made by persons in custody except those in the presence of a Magistrate (section 26) are not provable