1994 Supreme(MP) 306

P.P. Naolckar, J.
Prakash Singh v. State of M.P.
Cr. Revn. No. 413 of 1991 (J); Decided on 5.4.1994.

Headnote:(I) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S. 227 -- framing of charge -- no charge call he framed on the basis of statement of other accused to the police.

        (2) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 27 -- statement wider -- reliable only to tile extent of discovery -- implicating other person in offence -- not reliable.

        ¼1½ naM Áfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 227 & vkjksi dh fojpuk & vU; vfHk;qDr }kjk iqfyl dks fn, x, dFku ds vk/kkj ij dksbZ vkjksi fojfpr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA

        ¼2½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 & /kkjk 27 & ds v/khu dFku & irk pykus ds foLrkj rd gh voyacuh; & vU; O;fDr dks vijk/k esa vkfyIr fd;k tkuk & voyacuh; ughaA

        According to the prosecution, during investigation, it was revealed that offences punishable under sections 302, 201 and 109 I.P.C. have been commitled by the accused persons and, therefore, the two accused persons, namely Rajendra Pratap Singh and Nagendra Pratap Singh were arrested and their memorandum was recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Ad, wherein they gave a statement pertaining to the concealment of the fact regarding deLi"Very of an illegitimate child their sister Ranjana, who had illicit relations with one Satish and who had been subsequently murdered in respect of which Crime No. 170 of 1990 was registered and a trial is separately pending. The statement of Rajendra Pratap Singh and Nagendra Pratap Singh was to the effect that Ranjana deLi"Vered a child and the child was murdered by strangulation by pulling a pillow on the neck by Rajendra Pratap Singh; the dead body was buried in the premises of Krishna Sharan Singh, father of the applicant, with the help of the applicant and the other accused Nagendra Pratap Singh. The st.1tement of Babloo alias Rajendra was also recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act. He has stated that he along with Rajnedra Pratap Singh and the applicant hurried the dead body of the child in the hack portion of the house of BADE DADA On the statements recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act, the dead body was recovered. On the has is of the statement of the two co-accused, recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act, the applicant is also found to have committed an offence punishable under section 318 and 201 I.P.C.

        The counsel for the applicant has argued that except for the statement recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act of the two co-accused wherein it has been stated by them that the applicant had helped them in the hurrial of the dead body and recovery of the skeleton, there is no other evidence against the applicant on the basis of which he could be charged under sections 318 and 201 I.P.C. The counsel for the applicant, on the other hand, contended that the aforesaid evidence is sufficient at this stage to frame charge against the applicant under sections 318 and 201 I.P.C.

        Held : The statement admissible under section 27 of the Evidence Act are the statements which could be used as evidence against the maker and not against any other person. Under section 27 only portions of information given by an accused which are admissible are those which relate distinctly to the facts discovered thereby. Consequently statements by an accused which do not relate to aforesaid facts but involve other accused are inadmissible under section 27 against the later. In this case under the memorandum recorded of the two accused persons, a skeleton was recovered. However, the statement given by the two accused persons that the applicant had also accompanied them and had helped them in the burial of the dead body is not an admissible piece of evidence and thus the applicant cannot be roped in along with other accused persons by virtue of the statement given under section 27 of the Evidence Act, nor he can be said to be a person on whose information the skeleton of the child was recovered. No other evidence was pointed out by the counsel for the state whereby it could be said prima facie that there is legal evidence on record to implicate the applicant in the commission of the offences charged against him.

        On the aforesaid state of facto; and evidence, I held that there is no evidence against the applicant to up-held the charges framed against him under sections 318 and 201 I.P.C. Consequently the order framing charges against the applicant under the aforesaid sections is set aside and the applicant is discharged. The record of the case to sent back immediately to the Court below which shall proceed with the trial in accordance with law. Revision allowed.