The admissibility of information provided by the accused while in police custody, and the application of Section 27 of the Evidence Act in determining the evidentiary value of the disclosure statement and the subsequent recovery of inculpatory material.

JUDGMENT

Sujoy Paul, J. - This is an appeal filed under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) questioning the judgment passed by learned Special Court (Atrocities), Panna in Special Case No.01/2010 dated 10.3.2011 whereby the appellant was held guilty for committing offence under Section 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and directed to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,00,000 with default stipulation.

Factual background :

2. As per the prosecution story, on 09.10.2009, Shyambihari, son of Ramdeen Gond lodged a missing report in Police Station Brijpur that his father is missing from 07.10.2009. Missing report was lodged at No.8/09 and Head Constable Kamlesh Singh was directed to investigate the matter. During investigation, witnesses Chandan Gond stated that Jagga @ Jagprasad and Ramphal Lodhi may be involved in commission of crime. At this stage, further investigation was handed-over to SHO, Police Station, Brijpur i.e. Shri Udaybhan Singh. During investigation, appellant Ramphal Lodhi was interrogated by police and in turn, he informed that he alongwith his companions viz. Jagga @ Jagprasad, Mahesh, Chintaman and Ramvishwas Lodhi killed Sarpanch Ramdeen Gond in the night of 09.10.2009 at around 10-11 O'clock. He further informed that Ramdeen had illicit relation with wife of Ramvishwas i.e. Smt. Ramkali because of which there was serious grievance in Lodhi community. After murdering Ramdeen Gond, they tied his body with stones and thrown the body in a well.

3. On the basis said information furnished by appellant, the police with the help of villagers recovered the body of deceased from a well situated in the land of a villager namely Dadna Lodh. The dead body was identified by Samar Bahadur (PW15) and Shyambihari (PW18). The police registered the crime for committing offence under Sections 302 and 201 read with 34 of IPC alongwith Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Panchayatnama of the dead body was prepared. The post mortem report was obtained. Another Panchnama of recovery of dead body from well was prepared. To show that the well belongs to Dadna Lodh, another Panchnama was prepared. The 'site map' was also prepared and sample of water of said well was seized. Appellant was arrested. During the course of investigation, certain other recoveries were made from other co-accused persons. After completion of investigation, challan was filed. In turn, the matter was committed to the Special Court. All the accused persons abjured their guilt and prayed for conducting a full-fledged trial.

4. The Court below framed three questions for its determination. After recording evidence and hearing the parties, the impugned judgment was passed whereby except appellant all other accused persons were acquitted.

Submission of counsel for the appellant :

5. Shri Surendra Verma, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that although the judgment is running in 55 pages and is pregnant with 86 paragraphs, the singular material point for determination of this Court is whether appellant can be held guilty solely on the basis of recovery of dead body at the instance of appellant. Heavy reliance is placed on para- 80 to 82 of the impugned judgment to bolster the submission that appellant was held guilty on the singular reason that he informed the police regarding dead body of Ramdeen in the well of Dadna Lodh. No other circumstance or chain of circumstances were established. In absence thereof, the Court below has erred in basing its judgment solely on the said ground.

6. Ex.P/23 is a memo prepared under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Evidence Act). Samar Bahadur (PW15) and Shyambihari (PW18) are the witnesses to the said memo. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that when this memo was prepared on 12.10.2009 (at 11:30 O'clock), the appellant was in police custody. Thus, no confession statement contained in this memo can be used against h