Admissibility of confessional statement given before Police.

This revision petition arises from the order of the Sessions Judge, Bangalore, confirming the order of the First Magistrate, Bangalore, dated 8th March, 1968, by which he directed that M.O. 1 (gold ingot) be delivered to P.W. 2 Balasubrahmanyam.

The facts material for the disposal of this petition are these: On the night of 7tn February, 1967 two ladies, one Jayalakshmamma (not examined in the case) and Janakamma (P.W. 1) were sitting just in front of the house of P.W. 2, who was then a Magistrate at Doddaballapur. Three persons having disguised themselves, by smearing colour to their faces, suddenly approached these ladies and forcibly snatched gold chains from them weighing 31 tolas of 22 carrat and. ran away from the place. Shortly thereafter, P.W. 2, having learnt about the incident, lodged a complaint with the Police of Doddaballapur. The Police registered a case, but could not proceed further with the investigation as they were unable to trace the culprits.

It appears, during the course of investigation of certain crimes said to have been committed within the limits of Nelamangla Police Station, one Rama was arrested by the Sub-Inspector of Police of that station. On the information said to have been given by Rama, the Sub-Inspector of Police recovered M.O. 1 (gold ingot) weighing 18 tolas of 14 carrat purity from P.W. 3 at Arasikere. As the investigation disclosed that Rama was concerned in the case of robbery of the jewels from the two ladies in the house of P.W. 2, he sent the concerned records and the material object along with Rama to the Police of Doddaballapur. The Police, after investigation, filed a case against Rama for an offence under section 392, Indian Penal Code, in the Court of the Munsif-Magistrate at Doddaballapur. As the Magistrate himself was the complainant, the case was transferred to the Court of the First Magistrate, Bangalore, where Rama was charged with having committed robbery of jewels from the said two ladies.

The prosecution examined some witnesses including P.W. 2. P.W. 3, from whom M.O. 1 was seized, did not support the case of the prosecution. Relying upon the evidence of panchas who were present at the time of seizure of M.O. 1, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the gold ingot M.O. 1 was the result of melting the gold chains that were robbed off from the two ladies. He, therefore, convicted Rama and directed that the gold ingot M.O. 1 be given to P.W. 2. The latter part of the order, as stated earlier, was confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bangalore.

The ground upon which the order regarding the disposal of the go: d ingot is challenged is that the confession alleged to have been made by Rama while he was in Police custody did not lead to the discovery of any fact and therefore the Courts below were wrong in coming to the conclusion that the gold ingot M.O. 1 was the result of melting of the chains that were robbed off from the two ladies.

The case, therefore, hinges upon the confessional statement alleged to have been made by Rama and the consequential recovery of the gold ingot. The confession of Rama was deposed to by the Sub-Inspector of Police, who 8aid that Rama told him “About 9 months ago, myself, Chamundi and Ramakrishna together snatched three chains from women in one house at Doddaballapur. We sold the three chains to Puttanna Setty of Arasikere.” The learned Magistrate has held that the whole statement is admissible under section 27 of the Evidence Act. The learned Sessions Judge has not dealt with this aspect of the case at all. He disposed of the case holding that the gold ingot, as held by the learned Magistrate, was the result of melting of the three gold chains robbed off from the person of the two ladies mentioned above.

There is no doubt that the portions of the confessional statement relating to the removal of the chains from the two ladies would be clearly inadmissible. The learned Magistrate was not justified in relying upon the whole of the s