( 1 ) SEVEN appellants, Bhagirath S/o Param, Shobha S/o Param, Bhaggi alias Bhagirath s/o Paltu Lodhi, Halkai S/o Bhure, Bhagirath S/o Dolu, Mullu S/o Raghunath and Girdhari S/o Nanhoo Kachhi have been convicted by the Additional Sessions judge, Damoh, under Section 395, Indian Penal Code, and each has been sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment.

( 2 ) THE prosecution story is that a dacoity was committed in the Taparia colony near the suburbs of village Piparia-Mishar in the jurisdiction of Batiagarh Police station on the night between 17th and 18th December 1956 in the bouses of ratansingh, Amansingh and Ganeshsing. On 18th December 1956 Purshottam Rao sapre Patel of the neighbouring village Kutri sent a written report (Ex. P-l), through the kotwar Jalam (P. W. 13 ). A list of ornaments plundered from the three houses was also sent (Ex. P-3 ). During investigation it was found that the dacoits reside in villages Mangola and Kabirpur. The two villages are close to each other. Appellants Bhaggi and Mullu are residents of village Mangola, while the other appellants come from village Kabirpur.

( 3 ) THE appellants all denied the charges and attributed their prosecution to enmity with Hukum-lal (P. W. 32), Ramchandra (P. W. 38) and Babulal (P. W. 40) of village Mangola.

( 4 ) THE conviction of the appellants is based on certain discovery of ornaments and on confessions of appellants Girdhari, Halkai and Bhaggi alias Bhagirath. Shri R. S. Dabir, learned Counsel for the appellants, strenuously argued that both the discovery and the confessions have been obtained by threats and by beating by the Sub-Inspector of Police. I have no doubt that this is true. The modus operandi of the Sub-Inspector has been described by Babulal' (P. W. 40) in Para 20 of his deposition. The witness states that the Sub-Inspector asked each villager whether he had committed the dacoity. On his answering the question in the negative, he was beaten; and then a question would be asked as to where the property was. Then the victim would say that at such and such place the property was, whereupon he was taken to that place and the property was found. The witness added that appellant Bhagirath s/o Param was told that he would be acquitted and that appellant Mullu cannot see during night, as he is short-sighted, and he cannot walk without a Lathi and a lantern. The witness also stated that accused Buddha was so much beaten that he passed stools. On the basis of this evidence, which I believe to be true, Shri R. S. Dabir argues that the fact of discovery of the ornaments should not be believed and that the confessions must be held to be involuntary.

( 5 ) IT is true that confessions caused by inducement, threat or promise are inadmissible under Section 24, Indian Evidence Act. But though they are inadmissible, they may lead to discovery of facts or of things in consequence of the information received from the accused in custody. When the statements made by accused persons in police custody are confirmed by the finding of the property or facts, those portions of the confessions that lead to the discovery cannot be held to be false. Section 27 is based on the view that if a fact is actually discovered in consequence of information given, some guarantee is afforded thereby that the information was true and accordingly can be safely allowed to be given in evidence. Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67 (A ). In fact, section 27 provides an exception to the prohibition imposed by Sections 24 to 26. The evidence relating to the discovery, in the instant case, will, therefore, be considered on its own merits. It is true that before the confessions were recorded, all the accused persons were beaten by the Sub-Inspector. The Sub-Inspector denies it; but I do not think he has any respect for truth, and it is difficult for me to place any reliance on his deposition.

( 6 ) THERE are three confessions, all made on 26-12-1956. The appellants who confessed are Girdh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document