AYYAPPAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is information furnished by an accused in his confession statement that he has handed over the stolen articles for disposal to another accused admissible in evidence under Sec. 27 of the Evidence Act? Is there any irreconcilable conflict between the decisions in Joseph v. State of Kerala, (1997 (1) KLT 764) and Raveendran v. State (1989 (2) KLJ 534)? These questions are thrown up for consideration in this revision petition.

(2.) This revision petition is preferred by the petitioner a person in custody, challenging the concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence imposed on him in a prosecution under Sees. 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. He was granted the assistance of a legal aid counsel.

(3.) Three persons faced indictment initially for the offences punishable under Secs. 457, 380 and 414 read with Sec. 34 of the IPC. Accused 2 and 3 were convicted only for the offence punishable under Sec. 414 of the IPC. The petitioner/accused was found guilty, convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Secs. 457 and 380 of the IPC.