AJAYAN ALIAS BABY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 'Is authorship of concealment sine qua non to make information received from a person accused of any offence in the custody of a Police Officer admissible under S.27 of the Evidence Act (for short, 'the Act') Will such information which is otherwise admissible become inadmissible solely for the reason that such information does not reveal authorship of concealment '

(2.) The question arose in two criminal appeals arising from conviction of appellants for offence punishable under S.302 read with S.34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence to undergo imprisonment for life and payment of fine. The case is that on 03/04/2002 at or by about 9.15 p.m. appellants along with another (who was acquitted by the Trial Court) in furtherance of their common intention caused death of one Rajan. Prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence to bring home guilt of the appellants. One of the circumstances was the alleged recovery of weapons said to be used by the appellants for commission of the crime and the blood stained clothes of one of the appellants on the information given by them. Information given by the appellants to the Investigating Officer is said to have led him to the place wherefrom the incriminating objects were allegedly recovered. The Investigating Officer prepared mahazars for recovery of the said objects and in the course of evidence deposed to the fact discovered and the information given by the appellants. Information given by the appellants which led to the discovery of fact as deposed to by the Investigating Officer did not contain authorship of concealment of the objects. Learned counsel for appellants contended before the Division Bench that evidence of the Investigating Officer regarding recovery of incriminating objects cannot be admitted in evidence under S.27 of the Act since authorship of concealment of the incriminating object is not deposed to. Learned Public Prosecutor contended that authorship of concealment is not sine qua non for admissibility of the evidence regarding recovery under S.27 of the Act.

(3.) Both sides relied on various decisions on the point. The Division Bench though, was of the opinion that authorship of concealment is not sine qua non for admissibility of evidence under S.27 of the Act found apparent conflict between decisions of this Court on the question and felt that the question has to be decided by a larger bench. Accordingly the Division Bench by order dated March 30, 2010 has referred the question for a decision.