JUDGMENT T. Ramabhadran, J. - These four appeals arise out of four cycles thefts which took place in the city of Muzaffarnagar on various dates in March and April, 1952. The cycles belonged to Brahm Singh, Kaushal Swarup, Karam Chand and Jamil Ahmad. In all the four cases, reports were lodged with the Police regarding the thefts. Shiv Prakash appellant in Appeals Nos. 947 and 948 of 1963 had been brought to the thana in connection with some other offence. He was placed in the Havalat and interrogated by the police. As a result of police interrogation, Shiv Prakash took the station officer, P. D. Sharma to the house of Raghunandan appellant, where at the instance of the former, as many as four cycles were recovered and duly identified, in due course, by their respective owners. Police investigation followed and eventually the appellants were sent up charged in two separate cases, which were committed to the court of sessions. Sessions Trial No. 134 of 1962 related to the recovery of the cycles belonging to Brahm Singh, Kaushal Swarup and Karam Chand, while Sessions Trial No. 134A of 1962 related to the cycle of Jamil Ahmad which had been lent to Maqsood, servant of one Kailash Chand contractor. In both the cases Shiv Prakash was charged with an offence under Section 380 I.P.C. and Raghunandan under Section 411, I.P.C. Both the appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against them. Shiv Prakash not only denied having committed the theft of these cycles, but added that on May 3, 1962 he was returning from the Exhibition at about 6 a.m. Near the cinema he saw some persons holding one man. When Shiv Prakash went there, he was arrested by a constable, who took him to the Kotwali. There, Shiv Prakash was searched and some girls photographs were recovered from his possession. The Kotwal asked him to supply two girls to him, but the appellant expressed his inability to comply with his request. The sub-inspector, thereupon abused and assaulted the appellant and falsely implicated him in this case. 2. Similarly Raghunandan denied that the recovered cycles had been sold to him by Shiv Prakash for Rs. 15/- each on different dates. The Kotwal asked him to supply two girls to him, but the appellant expressed his inability to comply with his request. The sub-inspector, thereupon abused and assaulted the appellant and falsely implicated him in this case. 2. Similarly Raghunandan denied that the recovered cycles had been sold to him by Shiv Prakash for Rs. 15/- each on different dates. His allegation was that Shiv Prakash was his tenant in respect of one Kotha and the cycles had been recovered from that Kotha by Shiv Prakash, who had come there in the company of the police. Subsequently, Raghunandan was sent to the Kotwali and placed in custody. 3. The trial Judge came to the conclusion that the respective charges were brought home to the two appellants and accordingly convicted them. Raghunandan has been sentenced to undergo one years rigorous imprisonment for each offence. The three sentences inflicted upon Raghunandan in Sessions Trial No. 134 of 1962 were directed to run concurrently. A similar sentence was inflicted upon Raghunandan in Sessions Trial No. 134A of 1962. There was however no direction that this sentence would run concurrently with the other three similar sentences. 4. In the case of Shiv Prakash the provisions of Section 75, I.P.C. were applied and he was accordingly sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment for each of the three offences in Sessions Trial No. 134 of 1962, the three sentences running consecutively. In Sessions Trial No. 134A of 1962 Shiv Prakash was similarly convicted under Section 380 read with Section 75, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment; although there is no direction to the effect that this sentence was to run concurrently with the other three similar sentences. 5. It would be convenient to discuss the case against the two appellants separately. Shiv Prakash 6. Learned counsel for Shiv Prakash urged vehemently that the conviction of his client under Section 380, I.P.C. could not be sustained for the following reasons: A. There is no direct evidence to show that Shiv Prakash had committed the theft of the stolen cycles. The only evidence, adduced by the prosecution to connect him with the commission of the offence lay in the fact that he had conducted the police party to the house of Raghunandan appellant whence the stolen cycles were recovered. The only evidence, adduced by the prosecution to connect him with the commission of the offence lay in the fact that he had conducted the police party to the house of Raghunandan appellant whence the stolen cycles were recovered. Reliance has been placed by the court below on the statement, allegedly made by Shiv Prakash to the sub-inspector in pursuance of which the recoveries were made, vide Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Shiv Prakash had told him that he had disposed of the stolen cycles to Raghunandan for Rs. 15/- each. This part of the evidence, according to learned counsel for the appellant, should not have been relied upon for the following reasons: (1) Third degree methods were used by the police to compel Shiv Prakash to supply the information which resulted in the recovery of the stolen cycles. When Shiv Prakash was examined by Dr. Kartar Singh, Medical Officer, District Jail, Muzaffarnagar on May 4, 1962, as many as 13 injuries were found on his person, consisting of abrasions and contusions, which had been caused by a blunt weapon and were about a day old. Although Shiv Prakash had alleged that he had been beaten at the thana, he has given out another reason for it, i.e., that he had refused to supply two girls to the station officer. It was urged by his learned counsel that Shiv Prakash was beaten to compel him to give information regarding the stolen cycles. It was, therefore, argued that this was a case of testimonial compulsion, and as such was hit by the provisions of Article 20 (3) of the Constitution. Reliance was placed on Dhoom Singh v. State, AIR 1957 Allahabad 197 where a Divisional Bench of this Court observed as follows :- "Where facts disclosed, point to the accused having been subjected to third degree methods, prior to the discovery of a dead body, the genuineness of the discovery is rendered doubtful and the discovery become worthless as a piece of evidence. The reason is that although discovery, by itself is a guarantee of the genuineness of the discovery, there may bet cases where the circumstances are-'" such, that the fact that the discovery was induced by a promise would raise a doubt as to the genuineness of the discovery and render the evidence almost worthless". 7. The reason is that although discovery, by itself is a guarantee of the genuineness of the discovery, there may bet cases where the circumstances are-'" such, that the fact that the discovery was induced by a promise would raise a doubt as to the genuineness of the discovery and render the evidence almost worthless". 7. Reference was also made to Amin v. State, AIR 1958 Allahabad 293 where another Division Bench of this Court, sitting at Lucknow, indicated: (relying on AIR 1957 Allahabad 197). L "The phrase used in Article 20(3) is to be a witness and not to appear as a witness. It follows that the protection afforded to an accused in so far as it is related to the phrase to be a witness is not merely in respect of . testimonial compulsion in the court room but may well extend to compelled testimony previously obtained from him". "Article 20(3), therefore applies to discoveries under Section 27, Evidence Act, if these discoveries are the results of compulsion. The scope of Section 27, Evidence Act, is thus restricted by Article 20 (3) of the Constitution and the discoveries which follow a confession brought about by compelling an accused person cannot be used against him." Where facts disclosed point to the accused having been subjected to third degree methods prior to the discovery, the genuineness of the discovery is rendered doubtful and the discovery becomes worthless as a piece of evidence. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand urged that since it was not the case of Shiv Prakash that he had been beaten and injuries had been caused to him with a view to compel him to disclose the whereabouts of the cycles, the above argument is not available. The law allows an accused considerable latitude in making his statement, and the Court therefore has to look into the circumstances of the case, and it is not bound by any statement, made by an accused or by any omission on his part. Under Section 24 of the Evidence Act, I may point out, "A confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding, if the making of the confession appears to the Court to have been caused by an inducement ......" 8. Under Section 24 of the Evidence Act, I may point out, "A confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding, if the making of the confession appears to the Court to have been caused by an inducement ......" 8. In the present case, therefore, the fact that as many as thirteen injuries were found on the person of Shiv Prakash, and according to the medical evidence, these injuries could have been caused on the day the discoveries were made, does raise a suspicion (although denied by the police) that Shiv Prakash had been subjected to third degree methods in order to compel him to disclose the whereabouts of the stolen cycles. That being so, it was a case of testimonial compulsion, and having regard to the authorities cited earlier, the discovery cannot be used against Shiv Prakash, and thus the case against him breaks down for lack of other evidence. 9. It was further urged by learned counsel for Shiv Prakash that in Section 27 of the Evidence Act the word information after the expression in consequence of means the first information received from him. Learned counsel pointed out that according to the statement of Sub-inspector P.D. Sharma at the trial, when Shiv Prakash was first interrogated by him, he disclosed that the stolen cycles were at the house of Raghunandan. When Shiv Prakash was taken to the house of Raghunandan, there, in the presence of witnesses, he further gave the information that the stolen cycles had been disposed of by him to Raghunandan for Rs. 15/- each. It was urged by Mr. Agarwal that the second information was not admissible and, therefore could not be used against him. Reliance was placed on Dasu Ram v. State, A.I.R. 1952 Raj. 20 therein a Division Bench of that High Court observed: "Where the evidence of the sub-inspector was that the accused had already told him that he would recover the ornaments from his house and that he (accused) told so in the presence of witnesses for a second time who were not present when this disclosure for the first time was made to the sub-inspector ..........it could not be said that the ornaments in question were discovered on the information given to the sub-inspector in the presence of the witnesses. The only information that could be said to have led to the discovery was the information given to the sub-inspector when he was alone. Hence the evidence of the witnesses about the accused having shown his readiness to recover the property was not admissible". 10. It was, further urged by the appellants learned counsel that Shiv Prakash could not be convicted under Section 380, I.P.C. merely because he knew where the stolen articles could be found. Reliance was placed on Trimbak v. State of Madhya Pradesh, A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 39 where their Lordships were pleased to hold: "It is the duty of the prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of a person under Section 411, I.P.C. to prove, (1) that the stolen property was in the possession of (2) that some person other than the accused had possession of the property before the accused got possession of it, and (3) that the accused had knowledge that the property was stolen property." 11. Learned counsel for the State cited Parshadi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 211 and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Deoman Upadhyaya, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 1125. In the former case, relying upon Pulukuri Kattaya v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1947 P.C. 67 their Lordships held: "Where, in a murder charge, the appellant (accused) had stated to the police that he would give the clothes of the deceased, which he had placed in a pit above a brick-kiln, and there after, the appellant, in the presence of witnesses, dug the pit in the brickkiln and took out the clothes, which were identified as the clothes of the deceased, the statement of the appellant to the police is admissible." 12. In the latter case the facts were: "The accused in the presence of the investigating Officer and two constables, offered to hand over the gandasa, which he said he had thrown into a tank, and thereafter he led the officer and the witnesses to the tank and in their presence weded into the tank and fetched the gandasa out of the water. This gandasa was found by the Chemical Examiner and Serologist to be stained with human blood." 13. This gandasa was found by the Chemical Examiner and Serologist to be stained with human blood." 13. The view of the majority was: "The information given by the accused was provable, in so far as it distinctly related to the fact thereby discovered and his statement that he had thrown the gandasa in the tank was information which distinctly related to the discovery of the gandasa.' 14. On these premises, I was requested to hold that the statement made by Shiv Prakash to the Police Officer that he had sold the stolen cycles to Raghunandan for Rs. 15/- each, was part of the information which distinctly related to the discovery of cycles and, therefore, was admissible in evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. As pointed out by me earlier, the appellant Shiv Prakash sustained a large number of injuries, which appeared to have been caused to him on the day the recoveries were made. There seems to be force in the contention of Shiv Prakashs learned counsel, that third degree methods were employed by the police to compel Shiv Prakash to disclose the whereabouts of the cycles. Thus what would normally have been admissible in evidence against Shiv Prakash ceased to be admissible, vide AIR 1957 Allahabad 197 and AIR 1958 Allahabad 293 (supra). 15. There is also the circumstance that the first information received by the station officer from Shiv Prakash was only to the effect that the stolen cycles would be found at the house of Raghunandan, without further details. Thus the only evidence against Shiv Prakash is that, on the information supplied by him, stolen cycles were recovered from the house of Raghunandan. This would be insufficient to warrant a conviction under Section 380, I.P.C., vide A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 39 (supra). 16. The result is that the two appeals of Shiv Prakash (Appeals Nos. 947 and 948 of 1963) are allowed. His conviction under Section 380, I.P.C. read with Section 75 I.P.C., is set aside on all the four charges along with the sentences, inflicted upon him thereunder, by the trial court. Shiv Prakash is in jail. He should be released, forthwith unless wanted in some other case. Raghunandan : 18. 947 and 948 of 1963) are allowed. His conviction under Section 380, I.P.C. read with Section 75 I.P.C., is set aside on all the four charges along with the sentences, inflicted upon him thereunder, by the trial court. Shiv Prakash is in jail. He should be released, forthwith unless wanted in some other case. Raghunandan : 18. As indicated earlier, the evidence against this appellant is that on May 3, 1962, four stolen cycles were recovered from his house by the police in the presence of Om Prakash and Shafiq Ahmad witnesses, when they came there in the company of Shiv Prakash. The recovery was not denied by Raghunandan. His case, however, was that the cycles were recovered from a kotha of his house which had been leased out to Shiv Prakash. In other words, the contention of Raghunandan was that the kotha whence the cycles were recovered, was not in his possession and as such he could not be deemed to have been in possession of the stolen cycles. The solitary defence witness Vishnu Swarup stated that during the months of March-April, 1962, he had seen Shiv Prakash in occupation of the outer kotha of Raghunandans House. On enquiry, Raghunandan had told him that Shiv Prakash was his tenant in respect of that kotha. It is noteworthy, however, that Shiv Prakash nowhere stated that he was ever a tenant of Raghunandan. According to the testimony of the recovery witnesses, Om Prakash and Shafiq Ahmad, when the police party, accompanied by Shiv Prakash, came to the house of Raghunandan, and a demand for the stolen cycles was made, Raghunandan took them inside a small kothri, which formed part of a bigger room and handed over the four cycles. The conclusion, therefore, is irresistible that Raghunandan was in conscious possession of the stolen cycles. It is also noteworthy that as many as four cycles are involved in this appeal. The conviction of Raghunandan under Section 411, I.P.C. has, therefore, to be maintained. 19. As already stated, the court below has sentenced Raghunandan to undergo one years rigorous imprisonment for each of the three sentences running concurrently. A similar sentence was inflicted upon Raghunandan in Sessions Trial No. 134A of 1962. The trial Judge, however, has not indicated whether this sentence was to run concurrently with the sentences inflicted upon him in Sessions Trial No. 134 of 1962. A similar sentence was inflicted upon Raghunandan in Sessions Trial No. 134A of 1962. The trial Judge, however, has not indicated whether this sentence was to run concurrently with the sentences inflicted upon him in Sessions Trial No. 134 of 1962. In my opinion, such direction should have been made, as the four cycles were recovered at the same time. 20. The result is that Raghunandans appeals (Nos. 104 and 105 of 1963) are dismissed with the modification that the sentence of one years rigorous imprisonment under Section 411 I.P.C. inflicted upon him in Sessions Trial No. 134-A of 1962 (which has given rise to Criminal Appeal No. 105 of 1963) will run concurrently with the three sentences of one years rigorous imprisonment each, inflicted upon him under Section 411, I.P.C. in Sessions Trial No. 134 of 1962. (giving rise to criminal Appeal No. 104 of 1963), which, as already directed by the trial Judge, will run concurrently inter se. This direction is made under Section 397, Cr.P.C. 21. In other words, in the two cases put together there will be four sentences of one years rigorous imprisonment each, imposed noon Raghunandan under Section 411, I.P.C., and all of them will run concurrently. 22. Raghunandan, who is on bail, will surrender and undergo the rest of the sentences as modified by me. 23. This judgment will be read in all the four appeals.