JUDGMENT H.C.P. Tripathi, J. - Appellant Gokul has been convicted by the learned II temporary Civil and Sessions Judge, Meerut, of offences under Sections 302 and 201 both read with Section 34, I. P. C. and has been sentenced to death under the former charge and to undergo three years' rigorous imprisonment under the latter. He has come up in appeal against his conviction and sentences and the learned Sessions Judge has made the usual reference for the confirmation of sentence of death inflicted on the appellant on the charge of murder. Smt. Lakshmi, appellant's wife, who too was tried on these charges along with the appellant has been acquitted by the trial court. 2. The accusation against the appellant was that he along with one Chandu had committed the murder of Mohan Lal in the night of 9th and 10th February, 1963, sometime after 9 p.m. in furtherance of their common intention and for screening themselves from legal punishment had caused the evidence of the crime of murder to disappear by throwing the dead body in a well. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows. 4. The victim Mohan Lal was a well to do resident of Mohalla Lachmanpura in the town of Hapur. His wife Krishna Devi and his daughter Munni Devi had predeceased him. In order to commemorate their memory Mohan Lal had constructed a temple and had been residing in a room of that temple for the last seven or eight years. Appellant Gokul is the son of Mohan Lal's wife's sister. About seven or eight months prior to his murder Mohan Lal had invited Gokul and his wife to come and live with him and serve him in his old age. Accordingly since then Gokul and his wife Smt. Lakshmi started residing in another room of the temple adjoining the one which was in the occupation of Mohan Lal. Mohan Lal who used to lend money on interest was possessed of considerable movables in the shape of gold ornaments and cash. He was popular in the locality and people had to make frequent visits to his temple. Mohan Lal was last seen in the temple till the evening of 9-2-65 and thereafter became traceless. His neighbours grew anxious about him and made enquiries from Gokul who first informed them that Mohan Lal had gone to visit a relation. He was popular in the locality and people had to make frequent visits to his temple. Mohan Lal was last seen in the temple till the evening of 9-2-65 and thereafter became traceless. His neighbours grew anxious about him and made enquiries from Gokul who first informed them that Mohan Lal had gone to visit a relation. Two or three days after, the neighbours again made enquiries from Gokul about Mohan Lal and received the same reply. Not being satisfied with this reply, they sent Gokul on 23-2-1965 to search out Mohan Lal but without any result. One of them saw Gokul's daughter-in-law wearing a sovereign necklace and a gold Hansuli which appeared to be the property of Mohan Lal. This aroused suspicion of the residents of the locality who collected themselves at the nearby shop of Sumer Singh. Gokul and his wife Smt. Lakshmi were called there. In the afternoon of 26-2-1965 in response to searching questions by the witnesses, Gokul confessed to have called Chandu and Ram Dhan and to have murdered Mohan Lal with their help in the night between 9th and 10th of February, 1965, by pressing his neck and cutting it with a knife and then to have thrown his dead body in the well of Shanti Wala Bagli and concealed his clothes in the Johar (pond) . Hearing this story Sumer Singh and other residents of the locality escorted Gokul to the police station where a report was made in which it was mentioned that Gokul had confessed to them to have murdered Mohan Lal with the help of some others and then to have thrown his dead body in a well in the Shanti Wala Bagli. Gokul, who was immediately taken in police custody, offered to discover the dead body of Mohan Lal and his clothes. On his pointing out the dead body of Mohan Lal tied in a Palli was recovered from the bed of a well and some blood stained clothes were recovered from a Johar (pond) . Gokul took the police party to his ancestral house in village Ghazipur and took out from a room one gold Hansuli and a necklace of sovereign and produced the same before the witnesses. The aforesaid ornaments were taken in possession and placed in sealed covers. Gokul took the police party to his ancestral house in village Ghazipur and took out from a room one gold Hansuli and a necklace of sovereign and produced the same before the witnesses. The aforesaid ornaments were taken in possession and placed in sealed covers. The dead body which was recovered at the instance of the appellant from the bed of the well was identified by the residents of the locality to be that of Mohan Lal and the ornaments which were recovered from the appellant's house and the blood stained clothes from the Johar as belonging to him. 5. The post mortem examination on the dead body of Mohan Lal was performed by Dr. J. P. Jain (P. W. 16) on 27-2-1965 at 3.45 p.m. at the district hospital, Meerut. The deceased was about 62 years of age and the probable time since death was 15 days. There was one incised wound 32" x 2" cutting structures to vertebra deep on the front of neck horizontally. On internal examination soft tissues of the neck and blood vessels, the larynx and traches were found cut under injury No. 1. Death in medical opinion was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the aforesaid injury which was sufficient to bring that result in the ordinary course. 6. The ornaments which had been re-covered at the instance of the appellant, and placed in a sealed bundle in the presence of the witnesses were subsequently put up for identification on 21-4-1965 in the court room of Sri K. N. Srivastava. Magistrate First Class, (P. W. 10) . Ornaments of similar nature five in number were mixed with them. They were picked up correctly by the witnesses Sumer Singh and Hira Singh as those belonging to the deceased. After completion of the investigation appellant and his wife were sent up for trial which resulted in the conviction of the appellant alone as has been stated above. 7. At the trial appellant had pleaded not guilty to the charges. He admitted his relationship with the deceased and the fact that he along with his wife and children had been living with him for the last seven or eight months prior to the date of occurrence. He, however, denied his connection with the crime under consideration and asserted that the ornaments Exhibit 9 and 10 Hansuli and sovereign necklace belonged to his daughter-in-law. He, however, denied his connection with the crime under consideration and asserted that the ornaments Exhibit 9 and 10 Hansuli and sovereign necklace belonged to his daughter-in-law. He denied to have made any extra judicial confession or to have discovered the dead body and blood stained clothes of the deceased. According to him Mohan Lal had gone out to take bath in the Ganges and since then he had not returned home. He denied to have given false information to the witnesses about the whereabout of Mohan Lal and stated that the deceased had first disposed of his properties in favour of Sumer Singh by a will but had cancelled the same later on and had asked the appellant to come and live with him. Since then Sumer Singh had been nurturing a grudge against the appellant and he was responsible for getting him falsely implicated in the case in collusion with the police. Appellant, however, did not produce any evidence in his defence. 8. There is no eye-witness to the murder and the prosecution case against the appellant rests on (a) extra judicial confession made by the appellant (b) recovery of the blood stained clothes and ornaments at the instance of the appellant and (c) false information repeatedly given by the appellant to lull the neighbours about the disappearance of Mohan Lal. 9. Sumer Singh, Ramanand, Lakhi Chandra and Kishnu (P. Ws. 1, 2, 3, and 7), who are all residents of Mohalla Lachmanpura, have testified that the appellant had made an extra judicial confession before them to have murdered Mohan Lal in order to grab his moveables and then to have thrown his dead body in a well in the Shanti Wala Bhagh. They have added that the appellant offered to point out the well where the dead body lay and also the pond where he had concealed the clothes of the deceased. According to these witnesses the appellant actually discovered the dead body from the bed of Shanti Wala Bagh well in the presence of the police inspector and took out blood stained clothes from the nearby pond and that they had identified the dead body as that of Mohan Lal and the clothes belonging to him. According to these witnesses the appellant actually discovered the dead body from the bed of Shanti Wala Bagh well in the presence of the police inspector and took out blood stained clothes from the nearby pond and that they had identified the dead body as that of Mohan Lal and the clothes belonging to him. These witnesses have also described in detail as to how, finding Mohan Lal missing from the temple for a number of days, their suspicion was aroused and they made searching enquiries from the appellant but every time the appellant gave them false information that Mohan Lal had gone out to see his relation in a different village. They have added further that when the appellant's daughter-in-law was found wearing two gold ornaments belonging to Mohan Lal their suspicion that some foul play had happened to the deceased was confirmed and then on their searching questions appellant had given out the real story of Mohan Lal having been strangulated by him and his throat cut and then thrown away in a well. All these witnesses are the residents of the locality and represent cross sections of the society. They are independent witnesses having no axe of their own to grind against the appellant. Nothing has been brought out in their testimony to show that they had any particular reason for deposing falsely against the appellant. It is difficult to believe that these wholly disinterested residents of the locality will manufacture a false story of an extra judicial confession by the appellant for implicating him on a charge of murder when they do not appear to have had any strained relations with him. It was natural on their part to have become anxious about the where-abouts of Mohan Lal when they did not find him in the temple for a number of days. Mohan Lal had no one else to look after him except the appellant and his family members. In the circumstances it was but natural for these witnesses to have enquired from the appellant about Mohan Lal and their suspicion that Mohan Lal had fallen victim to some foul play must have been aroused when they saw the appellant's daughter-in-law wearing costly gold ornament belonging to Mohan Lal. There is, therefore, no improbability in Gokul blurting out the truth about the disappearance of Mohan Lal on their persistent enquiries. There is, therefore, no improbability in Gokul blurting out the truth about the disappearance of Mohan Lal on their persistent enquiries. That an extra judicial confession giving the details of the murders and the disappearance of the dead body was made by Gokul finds corroboration from the fact that the dead body of Mohan lal and his clothes were recovered from the well and the Johar. This lends assurance to the veracity of the testimony of these witnesses that it was on account of the confession made by the appellant that they had come to know about the presence of the dead body in the well and the clothes in a Johan In the first information report lodged with the police long before the recovery of the dead body from there it has been mentioned that the appellant had told the witnesses that Mohan Lal was done to death by cutting his throat. At the time of the post mortem examination an ante mortem incised wound 3i" x 2" was found on the neck of the deceased. Thus the medical evidence corroborates the testimony of the witnesses about the factum of the confession having been made by the appellant and also about its truth. 10. Sub-Inspector S. P. Tyagi (P. W. 21) has stated that the appellant while in custody had told him to have concealed the ornaments of Mohan Lal in his house in village Ghazipur and offered to point out the same. On the 27th February, 1965,, appellant dug the earth in the western-southern corner of the northern Kothri in his house at village Ghazipur and produced the sovereign necklace (Exhibit 10) and Hansuli (Ex. 9) as properties of Mohan Lal. The evidence of Sri Tyagi on this point finds corroboration from the statement of Sri Dal Chand (P. W. 5) who happened to be a First Class Honorary Magistrate and in whose presence the two ornaments were discovered by the appellant before the police. That the ornaments belonged to Mohan Lal is fully proved by the evidence of Sumer Singh (P. W. 1) and Hira Singh (P. W. 18) . Sumer Singh was the next door neighbour of Mohan Lal and had been frequently visiting him. It is obvious that he enjoyed the confidence of Mohan Lal inasmuch as the deceased had executed a will of his properties in his favour which was later on cancelled. Sumer Singh was the next door neighbour of Mohan Lal and had been frequently visiting him. It is obvious that he enjoyed the confidence of Mohan Lal inasmuch as the deceased had executed a will of his properties in his favour which was later on cancelled. Hira Singh is Mohan Lal's sister's son. Both these witnesses identified the two ornaments at the parade conducted by the Magistrate without committing any mistake. Their testimony to the effect that the aforesaid two articles belonged to Mohan Lal inspires complete reliance. When the appellant was questioned about the recovery of these two articles at his instance he denied to have handed them over to the police and asserted that they had been given to the Sub-Inspector by his son Chhatrapal and that they belonged to him. In view of the testimony of the witnesses named above it is not possible to accept the explanation offered by tho appellant. The appellant is a person of very ordinary means and had been living admittedly under the roof of the deceased and was being maintained by him. It is, therefore, difficult to believe that he would have been able to procure such costly ornaments for his daughter-in-law on the basis of his own resources. The discovery of these two ornaments by the appellant in our opinion lends further corroboration to the veracity of the witnesses who have spoken about his confession and also to its being true. It will be remembered that in his alleged confession appellant had stated that he had managed to commit the murder of the deceased out of his greed for his movables and as a result had obtained one gold Hansuli, six sovereign and some cash. The fact that the gold Hansuli and the sovereign necklace were discovered by him from his house at Ghazipur unmistakably connects him with the crime under consideration. 11. There is another circumstance which points to the guilt of the appellant. It is established that Mohan Lal was living alone in a Kothri of his temple. It is admitted that the appellant and his wife were occupying the adjacent room in the temple and were his near relations. Mohan Lal was last seen in the temple in the evening ." of the 9th February, 1965. It is established that Mohan Lal was living alone in a Kothri of his temple. It is admitted that the appellant and his wife were occupying the adjacent room in the temple and were his near relations. Mohan Lal was last seen in the temple in the evening ." of the 9th February, 1965. When Sumer Singh and others made enquiries from the appellant about Mohan Lal he put them on a wrong track by giving them false information that Mohan Lal had gone out to see his relations. In his statement before the court appellant asserted that Mohan Lal was present in the temple till Bhim Asthmi when he left to take bath in Ganges and did not return thereafter. Had it been so it was expected of him to have made frantic efforts for searching out Mohan Lal and in the event of his failure to have lodged a report with the police. From the testimony of the neighbours of the deceased it is obvious that appellant showed complete indifference to Mohan Lal's disappearance and did not take any steps to trace him out. On the other hand, as has been stated earlier, he gave a false information to the neighbours about his disappearance. This conduct on the part of the appellant is wholly inconsistent with his innocence and can be explained only on the hypothesis of his guilt. 12. Sub-Inspector Tyagi (P. W. 22) has also testified to the recovery of a dead body from the bed of a well in Shanti Wala Bagh and certain pieces of blood stained clothes from a Johar at the instance of the appellant. The dead body was identified by the witnesses as that of Mohan Lal and the blood stained clothes as belonging to him. The statement of the Sub-Inspector on this point finds corroboration from the witnesses who have testified to the extra judicial confession of the appellant. It has, however, been urged on behalf of the appellant that the evidence relating to the discovery of the dead body and the blood stained clothes of Mohan Lal at the instance of the appellant is not admissible in evidence as police was already in possession of the knowledge that the dead body ? was lying in the well and the clothes in the Johan. There is force in this contention. 13. was lying in the well and the clothes in the Johan. There is force in this contention. 13. Section 27 of the evidence Act which provides an exception to the general rule that confessions made to the police officer are inadmissible in evidence, is based on the view that if a fact is actually discovered in consequence of information given, some guarantee is afforded thereby that the information was true and accordingly can be safely allowed to be given in evidence. For the application of Section 27, it is necessary that the person giving information must be accused of an offence, that he must also be in police custody and the information must be such as has caused discovery of the fact, i.e. the fact must be the consequences, and the information the cause of its discovery. In other words the information must relate distinctly to the fact discovered. Only then "so much of such information whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved". It is, therefore, obvious that where the information relating to the discovery of the fact was already in possession of the police, Section 27 will not be applicable and any evidence relating to such information will not be admissible. 14. In the case of Aher Raja Khima v. State of Saurashtra, A.I.R. 1956 , Supreme Court, 217 it was observed: "The false beard and mask were found buried in the grounds of Dewayat's house and the appellant is said to have recovered them in the presence of panches. But those discoveries are inadmissible in evidence because the police already knew where they were hidden. Their information was not derived from the appellant but from Dewayat (one of the other suspects) ." 15. In the instant case the information that the dead body of Mohan Lal was lying in the bed of a particular well and his clothes were lying buried in a particular pond was already in possession of the police when the first information report containing this information was lodged with them by Sumer Singh though the discovery of the dead body and the clothes was made later on. Therefore, the evidence relating to the discovery of these two articles at the instance of the appellant must be ruled out of consideration. 16. This, however does not end the question. Therefore, the evidence relating to the discovery of these two articles at the instance of the appellant must be ruled out of consideration. 16. This, however does not end the question. The fact that the dead body of Mohan Lal was discovered from a well and his clothes from a pond cannot be ignored although the further evidence that they were discovered at the instance of the appellant cannot be taken into account. The discovery of the dead body from the well and the blood stained clothes of the deceased from a pond therefore lend powerful corroboration to the testimony of the witnesses who have spoken about the extra judicial confession by the appellant. It also shows that the extra judicial confession made by the appellant was not only voluntary but also true. 17. To sum up, the voluntary nature of the extra judicial confession which in our opinion the appellant made to the witnesses to satisfy the pricks of his conscience, the corroboration lent to it by the medical evidence, the discovery of the dead body and the blood stained clothes of the deceased, the recovery of the ornaments of the deceased from the house of the appellant, and the conduct of the appellant after the disappearance of Mohan Lal from the temple lead to one and only one conclusion that the appellant had his hands in committing the murder of the deceased and in disposing of his dead body out of greed for his valuables. In this view of the matter we are satisfied that the conviction of the appellant as recorded by the trial court under Sections 302 and 201, I.P.C. is justified on the facts and circumstances of the case and does not call for an interference. 18. Then there remains the question of sentence only. The mystery of disappearance of Mohan Lal from the temple came to light because the appellant made a clean breast of the whole affair. But for his confessional statement the truth perhaps would not have seen the light of the day. It is not clear what part was played by the appellant and what by his associates in the commission of the murder of the deceased. It is on the materials furnished by the appellant himself that his conviction is being recorded. But for his confessional statement the truth perhaps would not have seen the light of the day. It is not clear what part was played by the appellant and what by his associates in the commission of the murder of the deceased. It is on the materials furnished by the appellant himself that his conviction is being recorded. In these circumstances we think that it is not necessary to visit him with the extreme penalty of law provided for the offence of murder and the interest of justice will be secured if he is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 19. Accordingly this appeal is allowed in part. The conviction of the appellant under Section 302/34 I.P.C. is maintained but the sentence of death inflicted on him there under is set aside. Instead he is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life on the charge of murder. His conviction and sentence under Section 201/34 I.P.C. as recorded by the trial court are upheld. His sentences under the two counts are however, directed to run concurrently. The reference made by the learned Sessions Judge for the confirmation of the sentence of death inflicted on the appellant is rejected. The appellant is in jail. He shall serve out the sentences as awarded to him by this court.