Advocates:
H.R.KHANNA, K.R.CHAUDHARY, K.RAJENDRA CHAUDHARY, M.N.SHROFF, S.L.SETHI, VINA KHANNA

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the case of Mohmed Inayatullah vs. The State of Maharashtra:

• Case Details: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant of the charge of theft under Section 379 of the Penal Code. The case was decided on 9-9-1975 by Justices P.N. Bhagwati and R.S. Sarkaria. (!) (!)
• Facts of the Offence: The appellant was charged with stealing three drums containing phosphorous pentaoxide from the Bombay Port Trust premises on 1-8-1968. The theft was reported by the Shed Superintendent, who noted the car number and the time of the incident. (!) [1000168470001]
• Police Custody and Discovery: The accused was taken into police custody. In the presence of police officers and Panchas, he made a statement (Ex. C) and led them to a Musafirkhana in Crawford Market where the stolen drums were found. The drums were identified as the stolen ones. [1000168470018] (!) [1000168470003]
• Defense Plea: The appellant pleaded denial of the prosecution case. His counsel argued that the courts below misconstrued the statement made by the accused and used more of it than permissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. [1000168470005][1000168470007]
• Section 27 Analysis (The "Linchpin"): The Court held that Section 27 of the Evidence Act requires strict adherence to conditions. Only "so much of the information" as relates distinctly to the fact discovered is admissible. The rest must be excluded. The phrase "distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered" refers to the part of the information that is the direct and immediate cause of the discovery. (!) [1000168470010]
• Splitting the Statement: The Court analyzed the accused's statement: "I will tell the place of deposit of the three Chemical drums which I took out from the Haji Bunder on first August."
  • Admissible Portion: "I will tell the place of deposit of the three Chemical drums." This was the immediate cause of discovery.
  • Inadmissible Portion: "which I took out from the Haji Bunder on first August." This constituted past history/confession of theft, not the direct cause of discovery, and was ruled out of evidence. [1000168470012][1000168470013]
• Section 114 Analysis (Presumption of Guilt): The Court held that an inference of guilt under Section 114, Illustration (a) should never be drawn unless it is a necessary inference that cannot be explained on any other hypothesis. [1000168470015] (!)
• Alternative Hypotheses: Since the drums were found in a Musafirkhana (a place accessible to all and sundry, not under the lock and key of the accused), two hypotheses were possible:
  1. The accused deposited the drums himself.
  2. The accused only knew the drums were lying there. The second hypothesis was compatible with innocence. [1000168470014][1000168470016]
• Benefit of Doubt: Because the admissible portion of the statement (locating the drums) did not prove the accused was the thief or receiver, and because alternative hypotheses existed, the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt. [1000168470016]