JUDGMENT Misra and Kaul, JJ. - Puttu Pasi, resident of village Majbgawan, police station Mahmudabad, district Sitapur, has been convicted of an offence u/s 302 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to death. He has also been convicted u/s 201, Indian Penal Code, and has been sentenced under that section to rigorous imprisonment for seven years. He has appealed against his conviction and sentence u/s 302 read with Section 114, Indian Penal Code, and the record has been submitted to us u/s 304, Criminal Procedure Code, for confirmation of the sentence of death. 2. Three other persons: namely, Mahabir, Nandan and Bansi were tried along with - the appellant, Mahabir and Nandan having been charged under Sections 302 and 201, Indian Penal Code, and Bansi under Sections 302/114 and Section 201, Indian Penal Code. Mahabir and Nandan were acquitted altogether. Bansi was given the benefit of the doubt in respect of the charges under Sections 302 :and 302/114, Indian Penal Code, but was convicted u/s 201, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years. He has not so far appealed. We are concerned, therefore, only with the conviction and sentence of Puttu under Sections 302/114, Indian Penal Code. 3. The facts of the case are that on 5th April,-.1944, Hardwari deceased felt his house in Phulwaripur and no trace of him was found thereafter. His father looked for him at the houses of his relations, but in vain. This continued till the 18th of April, 19 U. On that date Hardwari's father Kallu Pasi narrated the fact to one Paragi of Shankarpur, who was the head of the Pasi Panchayat. The latter collected a number of other Pasis and convened a panchayat on 19th April 1944. Kallu was thereupon told that it was proved before the panchayat that Mahabir chaukidar of the village, who was a resident of a hamlet closely, namely of Mulchand Purwa; Bansi and Sahdeo, Pasis of Kandi, and Puttu, Kandhai and Kundan, Pasis of Majhgawan and Nandan Pasi of Bhaunri had caused Hardwari's disappearance. He was directed to mike a report at the thana. Kallu accordingly reached the police station Mahmudabad, sub-district Sidhauli, district Sitapur, at 9-30 p. m. and lodged the first information report. He was directed to mike a report at the thana. Kallu accordingly reached the police station Mahmudabad, sub-district Sidhauli, district Sitapur, at 9-30 p. m. and lodged the first information report. He stated therein that fifteen days previously his son Hardwari had disappeared after saying to the informant that he was going to the house of Bansi Pasi in Kandi. He gave the description of the deceased as well as the clothes and other things which Hardwari had with him. He further narrated that Paragi after the panchayat had informed him that it was proved that the "accused persons named by him in the report had brought about the disappearance of his son and that the whole story would be narrated before the sub-inspector at the time of the investigation. 4. The report was dictated by Kallu in the presence of Mr. Basdeo Singh, Station Officer, Mahmudabad. He proceeded forthwith to Phulwaripur, reaching there at 12."0 midnight, and started the investigation. After taking the statements of some persons he felt it necessary to arrest the four accused. He found Puttu at his house at Majhgawan at about noon and arrested him. Puttu made certain statements to him and then took him inside a thatched room of the house where he handed over a lathi, Ex. I, saying that it belonged to Hardwari deceased. He delivered also a cluular and a dhoti, Exs. VII and VIII, which had blood-stains on them and were alleged to have been worn by the appellant. Possession of these three articles was taken by the Station Officer. They were sealed in three parcels, and two recovery lists, Exs. 11 and 12, were in due course prepared and witnessed. Puttu thereupon is said to have taken the station officer towards the south side of a tank, called Jabda, but the latter is unable to state why the appellant took him by that way. He says that he merely followed him. When the party was near Mohammadpur they met Bansi and Nandan. We may mention at this stage that Mohammadpur does not lie on the way to Jabda Tal. It is in fact beyond it to the west. However, the station officer questioned Nandan and Bansi, and they also are alleged to have made certain statements whereupon they were arrested and certain properties were recovered from their person as they appeared to be blood stained. It is in fact beyond it to the west. However, the station officer questioned Nandan and Bansi, and they also are alleged to have made certain statements whereupon they were arrested and certain properties were recovered from their person as they appeared to be blood stained. Thereafter the station officer states that all the three persons took him to the south of Jabda Tal to the nadha, and after reaching the spot all the three of the said. "We buried Hardware's corpse in the nadha. We can dig it out and deliver it." Spades were then procured and all the three started digging together. Thereafter the corpse was recovered and all-.the three accused said that this was Hadwari's corpse. There was a chadra in which the corpse was tied. It was washed and dried and taken into possession under recovery list, Ex. H. The corpse was identified by Kallu and the deceased's wife Mst. Kailasha and many others of the village. * * * * There were no eye-witnesses to the occurrence and the case rested upon circumstantial evidence alone. * * * * * 5. The conviction of Puttu rested mainly upon a confession. Ex. 3, which he admits having made before Mr. Hardeo Singh, Magistrate, 1st Class, Sitapur, on 24th April 1944. * * * * 6. In course of his judgment the learned Sessions Judge remarks that though Puttu had not confessed to committing the murder and he had only stated that he was present at the time, in his Court the appellant had pleaded guilty to the charge of murder and also to the charge under Sections 302/.114, I, P. C. It was added that Puttu persisted in pleading guilty even after the Court had advised him to plead not guilty and had explained to him the penalty to which he was exposing himself by pleading guilty. 7. We have carefully gone through the re- cord and have come to the conclusion that Puttu is entitled to the benefit of the doubt and must be acquitted of the charge under Sections 302/114, I. P. C. On looking at the statement of the accused made before the Committing Magistrate as well as before the Court of Session we are unable to discover any confession of .guilt under Sections 302/114, I. P. C. It will be observed that the confession of Puttu. Ex. Ex. 3, alleges that on the evening of the occurrence after lighting time Mahabir had caught hold of his hand and taken him to the Har in Kundi where he made the appellant sit in a grove and himself sat with him. After Hardwari had brought by Bansi in a drunken condition along with Nandan Ahir, Mahabir tried to hand over a banka to Puttu and asked him to commit the murder. Puttu said that he refused saying to Mahabir. "Why don't you do it your- self?" (Main ne inkar kia Mahabir se kaha ki tumhi maro). He evidently made an attempt to run away, but Mahabir showed him a spear and said, that he would pierce him with it. * * * * * 8. The above statements will show that Puttu did not plead guilty. to the charges under Sections 302/114, I P. C" though he pleaded guilty to the charge u/s 201. 9. Puttu's presence at the scene of occurrence was, we are clear, under a threat and duress. There is no evidence to lead us to believe that this part of Puttu's confession is false. The learned Government Advocate wants us to reject the allegations regarding his being forcibly taken to the spot and regarding the threat to pierce him with the spear if he attempted to run away. In our opinion this part of the statement must be either accepted as a whole or rejected. Ordinarily the conviction of the appellant based solely upon his statement should be allowed to stand only if there are very strong circumstances to warrant such a course. Each case must stand on its own circumstances, and, where otherwise there is no sufficient evidence for conviction, a Court of Law we think should not supplement the prosecution evidence by selecting out of the statements of the accused persons passages which might indicate the guilt of the accused and to reject those which go to exonerate him. We concede that there may be cases in which such a course may be rendered necessary by the other circumstances of the case, but in our opinion no such circum- stance is discoverable in the evidence on the record in this case. 10. The remaining evidence against the appellant, namely, the delivery of the lathi Ex. We concede that there may be cases in which such a course may be rendered necessary by the other circumstances of the case, but in our opinion no such circum- stance is discoverable in the evidence on the record in this case. 10. The remaining evidence against the appellant, namely, the delivery of the lathi Ex. I, the finding of human blood stains on his dhoti and the chadar and the pointing out by him of the corpse and of the chnatawar tree under which blood- stains were discovered is consistent, in our opinion, with his guilt u/s 201, I. P. C. To this charge he pleaded guilty. We may further mention that so far as the offence under Sections 302/114, I. P. C, is concerned the Sessions Judge was of opinion that there was no motive for Puttu to participate in the murder. The evidence being solely circumstantial and resting, as it did, upon recoveries made at his instance and his own confession, we consider that the absence of motive was a strong circumstance which ought to have induced the lower Court to record a finding of acquittal on the charge of abetment of murder. 11. In an earlier portion of this judgment we have given the details of the investigation and pointed out that all the accused persons are simultaneously alleged to have led the sub-inspector to the various spots and to have pointed out the place of burial of the dead body. All of them again are alleged to have taken part similarly in the recovery of the corpse. Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act lays down as follows : Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved. 12. The use of the word "a person" in singular, we think, is somewhat significant and we are inclined to the view that the word was used in singular designedly be- cause we cannot conceive the joint statement of a number of persons can be said to be an information received from any particular one of them. 12. The use of the word "a person" in singular, we think, is somewhat significant and we are inclined to the view that the word was used in singular designedly be- cause we cannot conceive the joint statement of a number of persons can be said to be an information received from any particular one of them. When a fact is discovered in consequence of information received from outs of several persons charged with an offence, and when others give like information, it is impossible to treat the discovery as having been made from the information received from each one of them. As observed in Queen Empress v. Babu Lal (1884) 6 All 509 at pp. 549, 550, by Straight, J. : It is not a proper course, where two persons are being tried, to allow a witness to state ' they said this', or 'they said that', or 'the prisoners then said'. It is certainly not at all likely that both the persons should speak at once, and it is the right of each of them to have the witness required to depose as nearly as possible to the exact words he individually used. And, I may add, where a statement is being de-tailed by a constable as having been made by an accused, in consequence of which he discovered a certain fact o: certain facts, the strictest precision should be enjoined on the witness, so that there may be no room for mistake or misunderstanding..................In detailing statements of this kind, which are alleged to have led to discovery, it is of the essence of things that what each prisoner said should be precisely and separately stated. If the evidence was not clear upon this point, and the witness refused to be more explicit, the Judge should have paid no attention to it. 13. In AIR 1929 665 (Lahore) , it was observed : Where all the accused persons jointly pointed out the place where blood stains were found and subsequently the place where the dead body of a person was discovered buried, such evidence is not admissible at all against any of the accused unless it can be shown who made the discovery first. 14. Section 27 of the Evidence Act ought, we think, to be construed strictly. 14. Section 27 of the Evidence Act ought, we think, to be construed strictly. In cases where one accused has agreed to point out a place where a fact will be discovered in pursuance of his statement, that section would not cover similar statements of other accused persons in police custody. The observation of Ghosh J. in Durlav Namasudra v. Emperor (1932) 59 Cal. 1040 at 1048, may here be pointed out with advantage : The statements in question are said to have been made by four persons. Now, apart from the question whether these persons were in the custody of the police, it is quite clear that the statements of the persons other than the first person who made the statement cannot be used in evidence. The statement made by the first individual u/s 27 and in the circumstances described therein may be treated as evidence against him; but it is not allowable, under the provisions of the law, to treat the evidence of the other persons who may have made statements of the description referred to in Section 27 as evidence admissible under the provisions of that section. This question has been the subject of debate in several cases from the days of the Weekly Reporter (See in this connection the case of the Queen v. Ram Churn Chung). And it has always been held that the fact discovered should not be treated as having been discovered from the joint information of all the persons who may have made statements u/s 27 and in the circumstances stated in the section. It has been laid down that it should be deposed that a particular fact has been discovered from -the information of one person and this will let in u/s 27 so much of the information as relates distinctly to the fact discovered by reason of the statement made by that one person. 15. The result therefore of the discussion is that Puttu must be given the benefit of the doubt so far as the .charge under Sections 302/114, I. P. C, is concerned. We therefore set aside the conviction and sentence thereunder. The correctness of his conviction and sentence u/s 201, I. P. C, has not been questioned. It will therefore stand. We accordingly allow the appeal to this extent and reject the reference.