Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. On May 6, 1978 the accused further gave an information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act that one Geometry box and a pair of shoes of deceased Rajesh were also in the same well from which the dead body of Rajesh was taken out. His information was recorded in Ex. P. 52. The accused led the police party and the Motbirs to the well and a Geometry box and a pair of shoes were recovered from the well. There was a paper of Sanskrit subject of class 6th in that box. A seizure memo (Ex. P. 23) was prepared. The accused yet gave another information on May 7, 1978 to Inderpal Singh (PW 18) that a Science copy of his sister Seema was in the room in the second storey of his house and he could get it recovered. This discovery statement was recorded in memo (Ex. P. 53), and in the presence of Motbir Girdhari Singh (PW-19), and one Kishan Chand the accused got recovered the Science copy (Ex. P. 57) from which some sheets had been torn. The accused also got recovered one copy (Ex. P. 22) from the house of his maternal uncle Mahavir Prasad in Amba Bari. It was seized under memo (Ex. P. 21). Both the copies (Ex. P. 57) and (Ex. P. 22) were sealed. A scooter was also recovered on the information and at the instance of the accused. Identification parade of the accused was conducted by Shri Sauan Singh Magistrate (PW 21) and Pepsingh (PW 13) is said to have identified the accused in that parade. Indentiflcation of the articles. Geometry box and the shoes, was also conducted by the said Magistrate.

5. The accused was examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C. to explain the circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He stands on a bare plea of denial. According to him, he neither gave any information to the Station House Officer, nor got recovered the dead body of Raiesh or the Geometry box, shoes, copy (Ex. P. 57). copy (Ex. P. 22), as alleged by the prosecution. He stated that his signatures on various discovery rnemos were obtained by the Investigating Officer after torturing him. The accused came out with a plea that he was shown to Pepsingh (PW 13) when he was taken by Inderpal Singh (PW 18) to Clark Amer Hotel on two occasions on May 4, 1978 when the dead body was recovered, and on May 6, 1978 when the Geometry box and the shoes were recovered. He also came out with a case that during the investigation of the case he had a quarrel with the Investigating Officer, as the investigation, according to him, was not proceeding in a proper manner, and the Station House Officer was showing lethargy in the investigation of the case. He had threatened the Station House Officer that he will complain about his conduct to the superiors, and the Station House Officer got enraged and has falsely implicated him. The accused gave out that he will submit his written statement, which he did. The accused examined Dr. S. M. Dugar (DW 1).

Recovery of dead body:

16. We will now take up the evidence of recovery of the dead body, the Geometry box and the pair of shoes on the information and at the instance of the accused. Mr. Frank Anthony, the learned Advocate for the accused-appellant has contended that the witnesses of recovery have not supported Inderpal Singh (PW18) and rather falsify him in material particulars, and therefore, only on the statement of Inderpal Singh the recoveries cannot be held proved. It is further contended that the various discovery statements of the accused do not appear to be voluntary and were as a result of torturing by the Investigating Officer. The accused was arrested on May 4. 1978 after interrogation for about two hours. After one and a half hours of his arrest he gave the information (Ex. P. SO) of the recovery of the dead body from the well. He also gave information on May 6, 1978 for the recovery of the Geometry box and the shoes, also cave information to get a copy (Ex. P. 17) recovered and also the information about the scooter. But. it cannot be said that the various discovery statements were secured by the Station-House Officer, Mr. Inderpal Singh (P W 18) as a result of constant torturing. Inderpal Singh has denied to have done so. There is nothing to hold that the various discovery statements were not voluntary. The law does not require that the discovery statements should be witnessed by the Motbirs. It is during the investigation of the case on interrogation that the accused makes a discovery statement. It is not expected of the Investigating Officer to keep the witnesses in attendance in the hope that the aecuaed may make a discovery statement or to rush up to call the witnesses to witness the discovery statement of the accused. In the instant case, though some persons were present outside-the room where the discovery statement is alleged to have been made to Inderpal Singh (PW 18) by the accused, but it cannot be said that they were present in the room where the discovery statement was made. Therefore, on this ground, we are unable to hold that the various discovery statements, as a result of which various i facts were discovered, are inadmissible into evidence.

Recovery of Geometry Box and Pair of Shoes of Rajesh deceased.

18. On May 6, 1978 when the accused was in custody, he gave information (Ex. P. 52) t0 the Station House Officer, Inderpal Singh (PW 18) that the Geometry box and the pair of shoes had also been thrown by him in the same well from which the dead body was taken out, and that he would get them recovered, Inderpal Singh (PW 18) took the accused and the Motbirs, Rampal and Ramlal to the well, and the accused got recovered a pair of shoes (Article 4) and the drawing box (Article 6). which were seized and sealed by the Station House Officer (PW 18) under memo (Ex. P. 23). Rampal has been examined as PW 11. whereas the other Motbir Ramlal has not been examined. He accompanied Inderpal Singh (PW 18) from Ashok Nagar Police Station to the well. The accused was also throughout with him. He has stated that the drawing box and the pair of shoes were taken out Irom the well and a seizure memo (Ex. P. 23) was prepared, which is signed by him. Though, Inderpal Singh (PW 18) knew the well having earlier recovered the dead body at the instance of the accused, and therefore, there was no question of the accused pointing out the well to Inderpal Singh, but from the statement of Rampal (PW 11) also it can be said that a Geometry box and a pair of shoes were recovered from the well in the presence of the accused. Thus, it was in consequence of the information received from the accused by the Station House Officer, Inderpal Singh (P W 18) that the Geometry box and the pair of shoes were rocovered from the well, and therefore, the information of the accused with regard to the Geometry box and the pair of shoes is admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. According to the learned Advocate, there is no material on record that the Geometry Box (Article 6) was with the deceased when he left for his examination on April 26, 1978. But, there is material on record on which it can be clearly said that the Geometry box (Article 6) was with the deceased when he came out of the examination hall and left on a scooter with a boy Raju Kaul (PW 7) has clearly stated that, at the time when Raiesh left on a scooter with a boy, he was having a drawing box. Though, he has not stated that Article 6 was the same drawing box, which was with Rajesh. and also did not disclose so in his police statement, but there is no reason to disbelieve his statement. In the drawing box (Article 6) was a Paper of Sanskrit for class 6th. Though, the box has been described as drawing box, but it is a box of some soap (Margo.), in which pencil, rubber and scale etc. along with the Paper of Sanskrit of Class 6th were kept. The drawing box has been identified by Krishan Gopal (P W 3). Thus, to our mind, the Geometry box and the pair of shoes belonged to deceased Rajesh, and were recovered on the discovery statement of the accused furnished under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.