A. K. Patnaik, J. —

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated

22.7.1999 of the learned Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar in Sessions Case No. 22/1998 convicting the appellants under section 302 IPC and sentencing them to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2,000 each, in default, further RI for six months.

2. The facts stated briefly, are that, on 24.11.94 the In-charge of Dwarbond Police Investigation Centre received petition from Ramua Gour, Sow Kok and Nanka Lok to the effect that a dead body was lying below the house of Durgacharan at Bagbahar Part 1. The In-charge of the aforesaid Investigation Centre made a GD Entry and entrusted Sri P. Chanda to investigate the case. A case was registered under section 302 IPC. Thereafter investigation was conducted. After the investigation, charge sheet was filed against two accused-appellants. On the basis of the materials filed along with the charge sheet, the Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar framed charges on 31.3.98 against two accused appellants under section 302 IPC. The appellants pleaded not guilty. The trial was conducted. At the trial, 14 witnesses were examined. There was no eye witness to the occurrence. The only witnesses on whose evidence the conviction is based are PWs 6, 7 and 14. PW 6 has stated in his evidence that on 27.2.94 the IO called him while he was taking accused Ngula to his residence and this appellant brought two daos from his residence and confessed before them that he killed the deceased with those daos. PW 6 also witnessed the seizure of the said two daos which have been exhibited materials Exts 1 and 2 before the Court. PW 7 is a person whose Ambassador car was hired by the In-charge of Dwarbond Police Investigation Centre. He has stated that on 22.2.94 he accompanied the In-charge of the Investigation Centre and PW 6 upto the house of the accused-appellant Ngula and then accused-appellant Ngula brought out two daos from his residence and told before them that he killed the deceased with the said daos. PW 7 is also witness of the seizure of the said two daos as exhibited as material Exts 1 and 2. PW 14 is the IO who has investigated the case and he has stated that he came to know that two accused-appellants had land dispute with the deceased Taipur Sariam and he arrested the accused appellants who confessed before him that they had killed the deceased with daos and daos were kept concealed and they could bring out them if witnesses would go with them. He also stated that both the accused-appellants led them upto the house of Ngula and brought out two blood stained daos from his house and they told them that with those daos they committed the offence. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, mainly of PWs 6,7 and 14 the learned Sessions Judge convicted the two accused-appellants by the impugned judgment. Hence, this appeal.

3. Mr. CR De, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 makes it clear that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, which relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered is admissible in evidence. According to Mr. De the confession of the accused-appellants before PW 14 that they had killed the deceased with the daos is not admissible under section 27 of the Evidence Act. In support of the aforesaid submission, Mr. De relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Baboo vs. State of MP, AIR 1979 SC 1042 and Pohalya Motya Valvi vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 1949.

4. Mr. TJ Mahanta, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam did not dispute the aforesaid proposition of law that the confession of two accused appellants before the PW 14 (IO) that they had killed the deceased with the daos is not admissible under section 27 of the Evidence Act. He, however, submitted that the fact of recovery of two daos on the showing of two accused app

Click Here to Read the rest of this document