( 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 an