Admissibility of statements made to the police under S. 27, Evidence Act, and the requirement for the discovery to be directly connected with the crime.

Pollock, A J C—This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 1935 also. The two appellants Phulua and Prema, who are brothers, were tried together with Manmohan for the murder of Bhagwansingh at Bamhni in the Narsinghpur tahsil on the night of 19/20th September 1934. They were all acquitted of the charge of murder, but the appellants Phulua and Prema were convicted under S. 201, Penal Code, for causing the disappearance of evidence and were sentenced to 7 years' rigorous imprisonment. Bhagwansingh was seen to go out with Phulua after the evening meal on 19th September. Bhagwansingh's dead body was found in a well on the following day. The medical evidence shows that he received four incised wounds on the head, that his skull and lower jaw were extensively fractured, and that he was killed about five hours after his evening meal. Phulua was not found in the village on the 20th and was brought back from Chind on the 22nd. The only direct evidence against the two accused is that of Munnalal (P.W. 22), on which the prosecution and the learned Additional Sessions Judge have not relied. Apart from the fact that Phulua was the last man to be seen with Bhagwansingh the only evidence against these two appellants is that a small stain of human blood was found on one of Phulua's dhotis and that certain implements were recovered on information given to the police by Phulua and Prema. The Circle Inspector (P.W. 5) stated :

I asked Prema on the 23rd night to show the weapon with which Bhagwan was killed. He denied knowledge at first. Then he said that the sword which was used he had buried in the bandhan in which paddy was growing. Prema took the Circle Inspector and others to a bandhan in his field at about 3 a.m., on 24th September. There was then about four feet deep water, so the bandhan was broken and a constable was left on guard till the water subsided. Later Prema was brought out in custody and he said that he had taken the sword with which Bhagwan was killed and buried it in that field, and then he got down and picked up the sword from under the water.

2. Govind Prasad, the head-master of the village school (P.W. 6), stated that on the 23rd night :

The Circle Inspector asked Prema where the weapons were with which they had murdered Bhagwan. Prema at first denied all knowledge, but later at about 1-30 or 2 a. m. he said the sword I used to kill Bhagwan I buried in a field.

3. Baldeosingh (P.W. 20), a malguzar, stated :

I was present when Prema took the police to his field on Sunday night. The Circle Inspector told him: 'Show us where the sword is you killed Bhagwan with.' Bhagwan (presumably Prema) replied that he had buried it in his field. Prema took us along to the field.

4. Gajjarsingh, Sub-Inspector (P.W. 23), stated :

On the night of the 23rd the Circle Inspector questioned Prema at the school in my presence, and told him to show the weapon with which he killed Bhagwan. He replied that he used a sword and buried it in his field.

5. There is much the same evidence about the statement said to have been made by Phulua. The Circle Inspector stated :

About 9 a. m. I asked Phulua, where the. weapons were with which Bhagwan was killed, He first denied knowledge, and then said he would show where they were. He said they were buried in a pit in a field. So I took him- he was leading us-and we went to a field about. half a mile from the village. In it at the side there was a pit with water. Phulua got down and brought up two katarnas covered with mud.

6. Govind Prasad (P.W. 6), stated :

Phulua was asked where the weapons were with which they had killed Bhagwan, and he replied that he had buried katarnas in his field and would show were it was.

7. Baldeosingh and the Sub-Inspector said practically the same.

8. As a result of these statements the police recovered the sword and two katarnas, which I understand to be large knives used for cutting karbi, and the question is how far these statements are admissible under S. 27, Evidence A