Is information furnished by an accused in his confession statement that he has handed over the stolen articles for disposal to another accused admissible in evidence under Sec. 27 of the Evidence Act? Is there any irreconcilable conflict between the decisions in Joseph v. State of Kerala (1997 (1) K.L.T. 764) and Raveendran & Others v. State (1989 (2) K.L.J. 534)? These questions are thrown up for consideration in this revision petition.

2. This revision petition is preferred by the petitioner-a person in custody, challenging the concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence imposed on him in a prosecution under Sec. 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. He was granted the assistance of a legal aid counsel.

3. Three persons faced indictment initially for the offences punishable under Secs. 457, 380 and 414 read with Sec. 34 of the IPC. Accused 2 and 3 were convicted only for the offence punishable under Sec. 414 of the IPC. The petitioner/accused was found guilty, convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Sec. 457 and 380 of the IPC.

4. The prosecution alleged that at about 4.30.a.m. on 26/9/97 the accused trespassed into the residential building of P.W.2. He allegedly gained access into the house by removing the tiles of the roof. He committed theft of M.Os.1,3 and 4, car stereo, speakers and remote control from the car, in the possession of P.W.2 which was available out side the house. It is thereafter that he gained access into the house. Inside the house, he allegedly committed theft of M.O.2-a bangle studded with golden beads. A crime was registered and there was no clue about the identity of the assailant, though P.W.2 claimed that he will be in a position to identify the accused if he sees him again.

5. Long later, the accused was arrested on 26/6/1998. Interrogation of the petitioner/accused led to his furnishing information about the manner of concealment/disposal of M.Os. 1 to 4. He stated that he had handed over M.O.2 to the 2nd accused for disposal. Accordingly, P.W.9 arrested the 2nd accused and on the basis of his confession statement, effected recovery of M.O.2 under Ext.P3 from the possession of P.W.3 to whom the 2nd accused had allegedly sold M.O.2. The petitioner/accused furnished information to P.W.9 about the concealment of M.Os.1, 3 and 4 to the 3rd accused for disposal. Accordingly, P.W.9 arrested the 3rd accused and on the basis of his confession statement, recovered M.Os.1,3 and 4 under Ext.P5 from the possession of P.W.5 to whom the 3rd accused had allegedly sold them.

6. Cognizance was taken on the basis of the final report filed by the police. P.Ws. 1 to 10 were examined and Exts.P1 to P7 were marked. P.W.1 is an attestor to Ext.P1 scene mahazar. P.W.2 identified the petitioner/accused and M.Os.1 to 4. P.W.3 from whose possession M.O.2.was recovered under Ext.P3, turned hostile to the prosecution. P.Ws.4 and 7 are the attestors to Ext.P3. P.W.10 is an attestor to Ext.P5. P.Ws.8 and 9 are the police officials and P.W.6 is the finger print expert who allegedly compared the chance finger prints obtained from the scene with the specimen finger prints of the 1st accused and submitted Ext.P4 report to confirm that the chance finger prints were those of the petitioner/accused.

7. The accused denied all the circumstances which appeared in evidence against them. On the side of the accused, Exts. D1 to D7 were marked.

8. The Courts below concurrently came to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving all the ingredients of the offences punishable under Secs.457 and 380 of the IPC against the petitioner/accused No.1 and all ingredients of the offence under Sec. 414 of the IPC against accused Nos. 2 and 3. Accordingly, they proceeded to pass the impugned judgments. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 appear to have accepted the verdict of guilty against them. No challenge is pending before this Court, reported by the Registry.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner assails the c