GURNAM SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that burglary was committed in the house of P. W. I Lalchand. resident of village 6e District Ganganagar. during the night intervening August 16 and 17 1969. Lalchand was sleeping outside the main gate of his house during the night and when he got up in the morning at about 4. he to his surprise found the lock of his box broken. He also saw southern wall of his house broken. The following articles were missing from his receptacle:

(2.) THE contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the only evidence against Gurnam Singh is the information which he is alleged to have given to the police regarding the availability of gold Mohars pair of 'karlas and Paijeb'. This information is marked Ex. P. 9. The articles have been recovered from the possession of Ghasi Ram. P. W. 3 and Devi Das. P. W. 4 on the information (Ex. P. 10) and at the instance of accused Ami Chand. The information contained in Ex. P, 9 alleged to have been given by Gurnam Singh has no direct bearing with the fact of the recovery of the stolen property and, therefore, it could not have been used in evidence against Gurnam Singh.

(3.) ALTHOUGH the interpretation or Section 27. Evidence Act. has now been held to allow the admissibility of such statement as "i will produce a knife concealed, in the roof of my house" on the authority of Kottaya v. Empror AIR 1947 PC 67 : 48 Cri LJ 533 as it leads to the discovery of the fact that a knife is concealed in the house of the informant to his knowledge and if the knife is proved to have been used in the commission of the offence, the fact discovered is relevant. But this doctrine has never been extended to include statements concerning the source from which an article recovered was obtained. No statement except the last leading to the actual discovery of property is admissible. If the police were allowed to prove that A stated that he handed over the property to B and B stated that he handed it on to C and C to D and D to E and recovery was made from E all of them being accused, there is no guarantee that any statement except the one made by E is true.