The admissibility of information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and the requirement that the information should be first in hand and unknown to others prior to its disclosure.

1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. In case No. 140/78, registered for offence under Section 380 IPC, accused Girdharilal was arrested and some cartridges were found in his possession. During the investigation, accused Girdharilal informed the Investigation Officer that the cartridges are of the revolver belonging to the accused Jhabar Singh. On the said information, the police party made a raid on the house of the accused-respondent and recovered 158 cartridges from the field of Jhabar Singh accused-respondent. The case of the prosecution is that the above articles were recovered on the information and at the instance of the accused-respondent and the prosecution has successfully proved the recovery against the accused-respondent. The learned counsel for the accused-respondent submits that the cartridges were recovered from the accused Girdharilal were taken by him from be place from where the recovery is alleged by the prosecution on the information and at the instance of the accused-respondent, the alleged information is inadmissible because the place where the cartridges were recovered was already known to Girdharilal so the information given by the accused-respondent cannot be held to be admissible and is not covered by Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

2. Moreover, the statement of accused Girdharilal is a confession in nature so the same is not admissible into evidence and cannot be read in arty form against the accused-respondent as is observed in the case of Rahimatullah v. State of Rajasthan (1986 WLN (UC) page 293) . The learned trial Court acquitted the accused respondent on the ground that the recovery of the cartridges, rifle and revolver have been made from an open place and the same was accessible to all and Girdharilal also took the cartridges from the place from where the recovery was made. Moreover, the information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act should be first in hand and prior to the information given under Section 27 of the Evidence Act none should known about the place and the articles recovered subsequently on the information given under Section 27 of Evidence Act. But, in the present case it appears that the place and the articles alleged to have been recovered on the information and at the instance of the accused-respondent were known to Girdhari Lal and that is why be got the cartridges while recovered from his person by the police and he was the person who gave the information about the cartridges, rifle and revolver found in the possession of the accused-respondent.

3. The apart, a look at the record shows that the Investigating Officer went at the place from where the articles were recovered and he himself recovered the articles without being pointed out by the accused-respondent. This shows that the Investigating Officer was known of the fact as to where and which if the articles are hidden by the accused-respondent. In these circumstances the information given by the accused-respondent becomes inadmissible and this cannot be made the basis of conviction. No other evidence either is available or has been pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor so as to allow this appeal and convicted the accused-respondent. The learned trial Court has given a reasoned judgment and discussed the entire evidence and considered material circumstances and thereafter came to this conclusion that no evidence is made out against the accused-respondent and thereby acquitted him. The information given by Girdharilal is of 5-12-1978 now we are in the year 1991 so after a lapse of about 13 years it will not be fair just to interfere in the judgment of acquittal.I find no force in this appeal and the same is dismissed.

*******