VELLINGIRI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The charges against the petitioner who was accused 1 in the lower Court were in the alternative (1) under Sections 457 and 380, Penal Code that he broke into the house of P. W. 1 and committed theft of a bicycle; and (2) that he dishonestly possessed M. Os. 2 and 3, a dynamo and a light, which formed part of the bicycle alleged to have been stolen. The conviction it-self was with reference to the second of the charges, punishable under Section 411, Penal Code. The conviction was confirmed on appeal. Hence this petition for revision.

(2.) The bicycle was missed from the house of P. W. 1 on 6th December 1946. That it mast have been stolen, can admit of no doubt. The bicycle itself was abandoned. Only the light and the dynamo were removed The petitioner was arrested on 27th June 1947. On that day the Sub-Inspector of Police recorded Ex. P-3. The case for the prosecution was that the statements made by the petitioner in Ex. P-3 led to the recovery of M. O. 2 from P. W. 4 and the recovery of M. O. 3 from accused 2. P. W. 4 gave evidence that the petitioner sold M. O. 2 to him about four months before he gave evidence in August 1947.

(3.) The substantial question that arises for determination in this case is whether any portion of EX. P-3 is admissible at all under Section 27, Evidence Act. The portion of Ex. P-3 that was admitted in evidence in this case in the trial Court was: