The case clarifies the admissibility of confessions leading to the recovery of stolen property as valid under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

ORDER

The revision petitioner was convicted by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Cherhala U/s. 457, 379 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for different periods under the above Sections. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently by the trial court and set off was allowed. An appeal filed by him was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track), Alappuzha.

2. The prosecution case is that on 9.3.1995 at 2.25 a.m.

the accused trespassed into the house of PW1 and snatched a gold chain weighing 4 grams from her neck, while she was sleeping in her house. The accused was arrested in connection with a Crime No.68/1995 of Cherthala Police Station. During interrogation, he disclosed that he committed offence in this case also. On the basis of confession statement, the Police registered a Crime No.114/1995 and after completing investigation laid charge in the trial court U/Ss. 457, 379 IPC . On the above allegation, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 7 and marked Exts.P1 to P3 and P1(a) and MO1 in evidence. The incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence were denied by the accused while questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. After analysing the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court convicted the accused. The first appellate court also considered the relevant evidence, the submission made by both parties in the appeal and dismissed the appeal. Challenging the above judgment, the accused preferred this revision.

3. Heard both sides. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that there was no recovery as per Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act . In chief examination, leading questions were asked to PW3 and on that ground his evidence is not admissible. He relied following decisions, inHimachal Pradesh Administration v.Om Prakash [ AIR 1972 SC 975 ], Chandran v. The State of Tamil Nadu [(1978) 4 SCC

90] and in Joseph v. State of Kerala [ 1997(1) KLJ 764 ].

4. The learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the above argument and contended that recovery was effected on the basis of the information given by the accused.

5. The ground for admitting a fact disclosed to a police officer is candidly explained under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It will be seen that the first condition is the discovery of a fact in consequence of an information received from a person accused of an offence, secondly the discovery of such must be deposed to, thirdly at the time of receipt of information accused must be in police custody and finally “so much of the information” as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered is admissible. According to PW7 the revision petitioner was arrested on 6.4.1995 in Crime Nos.311/1994 and 68/1994 of Cherthala Police Station, during interrogation, he admitted that he had stolen the gold chain and gave it in the Balaji Jewellery, Cherthala. On the basis of that information, PW7 reached in that shop and the revision petitioner showed the person to whom the stolen property was entrusted. The accused was produced before the court and obtained his further custody. On 8.4.1995, at 11 a.m. he arrived at the place of occurrence and prepared Ext.P2 mahazar. On 11.4.1995, he arrived in the Balaji Jewellery and recovered the stolen article, MO1 from the Jewellery, after preparing Ext.P1 mahazar. Ext.P1(a) is the disclosure portion. Ext.P3 is the F.I.R. Independent witness present there attested the recovery mahazar. After completing the investigation, he laid charge before the court.

6. The recovery was challenged by the revision petitioner and contended that there was no recovery as per law. I have perused Ext.P1 recovery mahazar in which Ext.P1(a) was marked as the disclosure portion. PW3, the owner of the Jewellery deposed that the stolen article was converted into gold ingot. PW3 identified the revision petitioner and deposed that the the revision petitioner brought a gold chain weighing 4 grams and he paid Rs.1600/- for that. Subsequently, that gold chain was mel