9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Conviction under Section 379, Penal Code based on admissibility of information provided by the accused under Section 27, Evidence Act.
Analysis: 1. Facts and Trial: The appellant was convicted for stealing three drums from the Bombay Port Trust premises. The First Information Report was lodged by the Shed Superintendent, and the investigation led to the accused providing information about the location of the stolen drums, which were subsequently found in a Musafirkhana. The prosecution presented witnesses, including the informant, gatekeeper, and a panch witness. The appellant denied the charges. 2. Admissibility of Information: The key contention was the admissibility of the information provided by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The defense argued that the courts misconstrued the statement and that only a portion of the information was admissible. The prosecution asserted that the entire information was admissible under Section 27. 3. Interpretation of Section 27: The court delved into the interpretation of Section 27, emphasizing the conditions for its application. The section allows the admissibility of information leading to the discovery of a fact in custody of a police officer, with only the part distinctly related to the fact discovered being admissible. The court highlighted the importance of the phrase "distinctly" in limiting the scope of provable information. 4. Application of Section 27: The court analyzed the statement made by the accused and determined that only the portion directly related to the location of the stolen drums was admissible under Section 27. The court clarified that the rest of the statement, implicating the accused in the theft, was inadmissible. 5. Presumption of Guilt: The court evaluated whether the admissible portion of the information, combined with the discovered facts, was sufficient to presume the accused's guilt. It was concluded that the location of the drums in a public place like a Musafirkhana did not establish the accused's exclusive possession or control over the place, leading to alternative hypotheses of innocence. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellant due to the benefit of doubt. 6. Judgment: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the appellant's conviction, and acquitted him of the theft charge based on the insufficiency of evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
|
