AMRUT SOMA KUNBI Vs. STATE OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revisio application by two persons Amrut and Madhy, whose convictions by the Judge-Magistrate, Bhandara, under section 360, Indian Penal Code were altered y the Sessions Judge, Bhandara, to ones under section 411, Indian Penal Code. The sentence of each accused was reduced from two and a half years' rigorous imprisonment to one year's rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) According to the prosecution, the property of two brothers Mahadeo and Ganpat, living in the same house at Ghodezari was stolen on 25-1-57. There are concurrent finding of both the Courts below that their property was stolen and this finding is not challenged. The convicition of the applicants, it I conceded by the learned counsel for the State, rested entirely on the statements made by them under section 27 of the Evidence Act, leading to discovery of part of the stolen property. Madhya made a statement whereby he agreed to discover property which ad beeb buried on a dhura in his field, and accordingly a box containing ornaments was found buried at the spot. In pursuance of the statement made by Amrut cash was found in his house. Both the Courts below have held that cash had been identified and proved to be stolen property stolen at the time of the offence. They also held that the ornaments found in the field of Madhya were proved to be stolen property. The conviction of Amrut and Madhya therefore rests on these items of evidence only and this fact is conceded by Mr. Abhyankar, learned counsel for the State.

(3.) In revision. however, it is contended that these statements are inadmissible because they were made as a result of harassment and continuous interrogation for several hours and therefore the statements are involuntary and are inadmissible in evidence. In his judgment the learned Sessions Judge has observed: