Paras Ram v. State of U. P. — 1969 DIGILAW 262 (ALL)

JUDGMENT G. C. Mathur, J. - The appellants Paras Ram and Sadhu have been convicted by the II Temporary Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, under Section 302/34, I. P. C. and each has been sentenced to death for the murder of one Smt. Mannu alias Manni. They have further been convicted under Sections 201/34 and 394/34, I. P. C. and each has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years on each count. The appellants have preferred this appeal against their conviction and sentences and the Sessions judge has made a reference for the confirmation of the sentences of death passed against the appellants. 2. Appellants Paras Ram and Sadhu are related to each other and are said to be fast friends. Smt. Manni, the deceased, had three brothers, Sumera (P. W. i) , Kamla (P. W. 9) and Budia (P. W. 10) . She had an elder sister Suit. Tijiya who has a daughter Smt. Babboo (P. W. 6) aged about ten years. Smt. Manni was about 19 years of age and had been married about three years before the occurrence. About two months before the occurrence Smt. Manni had gone to her father-in-law's house for her gonna ceremony and after staying there for fifteen days had returned to her brother's house in village Mangrol Kalan. According to the prosecution, there was great friendship between the appellants and Budiya (P. W. 10) . They used to visit the house of the deceased frequently. Paras Ram had a goat which lie used to keep with the goats of Budia at the house of Budiya and used to go there every evening to fetch the milk of his goat. According to the prosecution case the two appellants developed illicit intimacy with Suit. Manni and she became pregnant by them. On July 23, 1967 about sun set time Smt. Manni and Km. Babboo (P. W. 6) were milking the goats at their house. After four goats had been milked and two remained to be milked. the two appellants came there and asked Smt. Manni to accompany them. Smt. Manni then asked Km. Babboo to milk the remaining two goats, went inside the house and brought out a small bundle and went away in the company of the two appellants. When Sumera (P. AN'. 1) came back to his house in the evening he found Suit. Manni missing. On enquiry, Km. Smt. Manni then asked Km. Babboo to milk the remaining two goats, went inside the house and brought out a small bundle and went away in the company of the two appellants. When Sumera (P. AN'. 1) came back to his house in the evening he found Suit. Manni missing. On enquiry, Km. Babboo informed him 'hat she had gone with the appellants. She also told him that the appellants told Manni that they would give her some medicine. The deceased was seen going with the company of the appellants the same evening towards the house of the appellants by Ram Kishun alias Gaddu (P. W. 4) and Babu Lal (P. W. 11) . The three brother, Sumera (P. W. 1) , Kamla (P. W. 9) and Budia (P. W. 10) searched for their sister in the village and at the houses of the appellants but could not find her. The house of the appellant Paras Ram was found locked and the mother of Sadhu told them that she did not know the whereabouts of Sadhu. The next day the three brothers first searched their sister in the neighbouring villages at the houses of their relations and at the houses of relations of the appellants but did not succeed in tracing either their sister or any of the appellants. On the third day i.e. on July 25, 1967 Kamla went to the house at the father-in-law of Smt. Manni and told him that Smt. Mannia had disappeared. He then came back to the village on the 26th. The same evening he went to police station Kulpahar and lodged a report under Section 498, I. P. C. mentioning the two appellants as the accused. The report was to the effect that the appellant Paras Ram used to come to his house to take milk and 'developed illicit intimacy with Smt. Manni, that on July 23, 1967 the appellants had taken her away on account of the illicit intimacy, that she had taken away jewellery worth Rs. 7001- and that several persons had seen her going with the appellants. The report mentioned the names of three persons as the witnesses, namely, Gadda, Babboo Slo Ram Dayal and Basanta. 7001- and that several persons had seen her going with the appellants. The report mentioned the names of three persons as the witnesses, namely, Gadda, Babboo Slo Ram Dayal and Basanta. On July 27, 1967 Sumera (P. W. 1) met the appellant Sadhu in the village at the door of Lachman and asked him to tell the whereabouts of Smt. Manni but Sadhu told him nothing. The same evening Budia (P. W. 10) saw Sadhu at the door of Gaddu Lambardar. Budia also enquired from him about his sister and brought him to his own house. After some persuasions Sadhu made an extra judicial confession. Sadhu stated that lie and Paras Ram had developed illicit relationship with Smt. Manni and she had a pregnancy of two months by them, that the appellants had brought Smt. Manni on the evening of Sunday (July 23) to the house of Paras Ram, that Manni had brought some jewellery with her, that on account of greed and to save themselves from the scandal on account of the pregnancy they killed Smt. Manni and buried her body in a pit which they dug in the house of Paras Ram. He further stated that Paras Ram then went away to sell the jewellery and left the key of the house with him. He offered to show the place where the body was buried. At the time when he made the extra judicial confession Baldeo Prasad (P. W. 2), Jugul Kishore, Chotey Lal, Nawal Kishore and Baboo Brahan (P. W. 5) were present. The three brothers Sumera, Kamla and Budia were also present. The three brothers then sent for the village chowkidar and told him everything. Kamla (P. W. 9) and the chowkidar then went and kept guard over the house of Paras Ram. The house of Paras Ram was at that time locked from the outside Sumera (P. W. 1), leaving his brother Budia and one Basanta at the house with Sadhu, went to one Shravan Kumar (P. W. 7) and got a report scribed. With this report Sumera (P. W. 1) started for the police station. But while he was still in the village he was informed that the Station Officer was in the village at the house of Achey Lal, Sarpanch. Sumera then went to the Station Officer and handed over the report. With this report Sumera (P. W. 1) started for the police station. But while he was still in the village he was informed that the Station Officer was in the village at the house of Achey Lal, Sarpanch. Sumera then went to the Station Officer and handed over the report. Station Officer Ram Khelawan Tiwari (P. W. 15) made some endorsement on the report and sent it to the police station where the report was lodged at 3.30 a.m. on July 28, 1967. After sending the report S. K. Tewari came to the house of Sumera and arrested the appellant Sadhu. After some interrogation Sadhu said that he had the key of the house of Paras Ram and that he would recover the (lead body of Manni from the house of Paras Ram where it was buried. Thereupon the appellant was taken to the house of Paras Ram. There he opened the lock with the key which lie took out from his pocket and went inside the house. A gas lantern had been procured and this was also taken inside the house. Sadhu led the Station Officer and other witnesses to the eastern kothri on the southern side of the house and after removing some fire wood and cow dung cakes from a corner stated that the body was buried there. He then asked for a spade which was procured and thereafter Sadhu (lug out the body of Smt. Manni from that place. Girja Prasad (P. W. 3) ., Ram Kishan alias Gaddu (P. W. 4) and Station Officer R. K. Tewari (P. W. 15) witnessed the opening of the lock and the recovery of the dead body. The body was identified by Sumera (P. W. 1) and Kamla (P. W. 8) to be the body of their sister Suit. Manni. The Station Officer searched for Paras Ram but could not find him. Paras Ram ultimately surrendered in court on August 2, 1967. 3. The body of Smt. Manni was sent for post-mortem examination. The examination was performed on July 29, 1967 at about 9.15 a.m. by Dr. U. S. Gupta, Medical Officer Incharge Male Hospital, Mahoba. He found the body in a state of decomposition. There were three ante-mortem injuries on the body, which were all punctured wounds on the abdomen. 3. The body of Smt. Manni was sent for post-mortem examination. The examination was performed on July 29, 1967 at about 9.15 a.m. by Dr. U. S. Gupta, Medical Officer Incharge Male Hospital, Mahoba. He found the body in a state of decomposition. There were three ante-mortem injuries on the body, which were all punctured wounds on the abdomen. In the opinion of the doctor death was caused by one of the injuries in which the liver had been injured. 4. At the trial the prosecution, there being no eye-witness of the occurrence, relied upon the extra judicial confession of Sadhu and upon certain circumstances to prove its case against the two appellants. These circumstances have already been indicated in the narration of the prosecution case above. 5. Both the appellants pleaded not guilty but they did not lead any evidence in defence. Paras Ram denied that he had any illicit relations with Smt. Manni. He also denied that appellant Sadhu had made any extra judicial confession. He further pleaded that he had left the village two days before the (late of occurrence and was not in the village at the time of the occurrence. He denied his knowledge about the recovery of the body from his house and denied giving the keys of his house to appellant Sadhu. He pleaded that the witnesses deposed against him on account of enmity. Appellant Sadhu also denied having any illicit connection with Smt. Manni or having taken Suit. Manni on the date of occurrence from her house. He denied having made any extra judicial confession. He also denied the opening of the lock of Paras Ram's house and recovering the body of Smt. Manni. He also stated that the witnesses deposed against him due to enmity and party-bandi. 6. The Sessions judge held that all the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution had fully established that appellant Sadhu had made an extra judicial confession and that it was reliable. He also stated that the witnesses deposed against him due to enmity and party-bandi. 6. The Sessions judge held that all the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution had fully established that appellant Sadhu had made an extra judicial confession and that it was reliable. According to him, these circumstances and facts fully established that the appellants had committed the cold blooded murder of Smt. Manni in order to have themselves from the scandal of pregnancy of Smt. Munni by them and "out of pure greed of ornaments and thereafter they buried the dead body of Smt. Munni in the house of Paras Ram in order to obliterate the evidence of murder and also robbed the lady of her ornaments.' He accordingly convicted the appellants and sentenced them as stated above. 7. We have been taken through the entire evidence on record by Sri Palok Basu, learned counsel for the appellants and we have heard him at considerable length. We have also heard Sri B. N. Katju, learned Deputy Government Advocate. What we have first to see is whether all the facts and circumstances relied upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of the two appellants have been fully established and whether the extra judicial confession made by Sadhu was really made by him and whether it is reliable. The first circumstances relied upon by the prosecution is that Pares Ram and Sadhu were friendly with the deceased, used to visit her house and had developed illicit intimacy with her. Sumera (P. W. 1), Kamla (P. W. 9) and Budia. (P. W. 10) have all deposed that the two appellants were good friends of Budia (P. W. 10) . They have deposed that Budia was a wrestler and the two appellants used to accompany him whenever he used to go out for wrestling bouts. They have also stated that the goat of Paras Ram used to be tied along with their goats and that Paras Ram used to come every evening to take the milk of his goat. Though Sadhu has denied his friendship with Budia, Paras Ram has admitted that he had friendship with Budia and used to meet him on account of village relationship. We can see no reason whatsoever for disbelieving the statements of these three witnesses. Nothing has been brought out in their cross-examination to discredit their testimony. Though Sadhu has denied his friendship with Budia, Paras Ram has admitted that he had friendship with Budia and used to meet him on account of village relationship. We can see no reason whatsoever for disbelieving the statements of these three witnesses. Nothing has been brought out in their cross-examination to discredit their testimony. Sumera (P. W. 1) and Budia (P. W. 10) have also stated that the appellants had developed illicit intimacy with their sister. Smt. Mania (P. W. 8) wife of Sumera stated that four or five (lays before the disappearance of Smt. Manni, Smt. Manni complained of pain in her abdomen. This witness massaged her aixlomen and found that it was somewhat hard and smooth. On enquiry Smt. Manni told her that she was pregnant through Paras Rani and Sadhu and that the pregnancy was of two months. This statement was objected to by the defence counsel in the trial court but the Sessions judge held it admissible under Section 32 of the Evidence Act Sri Palok Basu contended before us that the statement alleged to have been made by Smt. Manni before her death to P. AV. 8 is not admissible under Section 32. we are unable to agree. Sub-sec. (1) of Section 32 provides that the statement of a person who is dead of a relevant fact is admissible when the statement is made as to the cause of his death or as to any of circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death. The question whether Suit. Manni was pregnant by the two appellants is relevant question in this case. It appears to us that her statement relates to circumstance of the transaction which resulted in the death of Smt. Manni. In Pakala Naraiyan Swami v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1939 P.C. 47. The Privy Council has explained what the phrase "circumstances of the transaction" means. They held that the circumstances must have some proximate relation to the actual occurrence and must be of the transaction which resulted in the death of the declarant. In Pakala Naraiyan Swami v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1939 P.C. 47. The Privy Council has explained what the phrase "circumstances of the transaction" means. They held that the circumstances must have some proximate relation to the actual occurrence and must be of the transaction which resulted in the death of the declarant. In this case it was held that the statement made by the deceased that he was proceeding to the spot where he was in fact killed, or as to his reasons for so proceeding, or that he was going to meet a particular person, or that he had been invited by such person to meet him would each of them be circumstances or the transaction. 8. In Satish Chandra Saha v. The State, AIR 1951 Calcutta 379 it was held that : "The statement of the deceased that lie was going to the accused to release his cow which the accused had confined, made almost immediately, preceding the quarrel over the recovery of the cow during the course of which the deceased had sustained an injury from the accused resulting in his death was admissible under Section 32 (1) as it related to the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death." 9. In Re Kalusingh Motisingh, A.I.R. 1964 M.P. 30, a number of Bhils had attacked some Bagris and killed some of them including one Balya Bagri, at midday. Earlier that day Balya Bagri was involved in an incident with one Nandi Bai wife of the Bhil leader in which Nandi Bai is said to have threatened to get all the Bagris finished off that day. This fact was sought to be proved by the statements of certain witnesses who were told about it by Balya Bagri shortly before the attack in which he was killed. The M. P. High Court held that the statement of Balya Bagri to the witnesses was admissible under Section 32 (1) and observed : "This piece of evidence is of very considerable importance because it is the only account before us of how all of a sudden the Bhils were fired with murderous fury against Balya and his people, and generally against all the Bagris.......... Certainly, Balya Bagri's statement is not one regarding the cause of his death; but it is one regarding a circumstance of the transaction which resulted in his death; that being the entire continuity of events between the altercation near Hindu Singh's field in the morning and the attack a few hours later." In this case, a reference is made to the decision of the Madras High Court in Chinnavalayan v. State of Madras, (1959) 1 Madras L.J. 246, where it was held that the statements made by the witnesses for the prosecution that the deceased told them that he had broken the vessels of the accused a little while ago would afford a motive for the accused to commit the crime and is admissible under Sections 8 and 32 (1) of the Evidence Act. 10. In Thanuvan Retnakaran v. State, A.I.R. 1955 T.C. 87 where the case of the prosecution was that the accused wanted to do away with the deceased because of her pregnancy through him, it was held that the statement of the deceased to the witness of her condition and of the persons responsible for it would be admissible under Section 32 (1) as it was a circumstance which had some proximate relation to her death. 11. We are in full agreement with these authorities and hold that the statement of Smt. Mania (P. W. 8) to the effect that Smt. Manni deceased had told her that she had a pregnancy of two months through the appellants is, admissible in evidence. There is no reason to doubt the statement of this witness. It is thus satisfactorily proved by the prosecution evidence that the two appellants used to visit the house of the deceased, had developed illicit intimacy with her and that she had a pregnancy of two months through them. 12. The second circumstance sought to be established by the prosecution is that the deceased was milking her goats when the two appellants came there and took her away with them. This fact is deposed to only by Km. Babboo (P. W. 6) who is the daughter of the deceased's elder sister Tijia. Km. Babboo is a girl of ten years of age. The Sessions judge, after putting certain questions to her, we satisfied that the witness gave relevant answers and understood the sanctity of oath. This fact is deposed to only by Km. Babboo (P. W. 6) who is the daughter of the deceased's elder sister Tijia. Km. Babboo is a girl of ten years of age. The Sessions judge, after putting certain questions to her, we satisfied that the witness gave relevant answers and understood the sanctity of oath. She stated that she and the deceased were milking the goats a.1.d when they had milked four goats and only two remained, the appellants came there and asked the deceased to accompany them. Smt. Manni asked her to milk the remaining goats, went inside the house, came out with a small bundle and left with the appellants. She later told her maternal uncle and aunt about this. Nothing has come in her cross-examination discredit her testimony. She is a truthful witness and her statement carries conviction. In her cross-examination, she explained that she had gone to Sumera's house on the occasion of gauna ceremony of the deceased. Her statement was attacked on the ground that she is not mentioned as a witness either in the first report (Ex. Ka-5) lodged on July 26 or in the second report (Ex. Ka-6) lodged on July 28. Kamla (P. W. 9), who lodged Ex. Ka-5, was asked why lie had not named Km. Babboo as a witness and he explained that Km. Babboo was very young and he was not sure whether he could be examined as a witness or not. No such question was put to Sumera (P. W. 1) who lodged the report (Ex. Ka-6). The explanation given by Kamla ,P. W. 9) is plausible. We are satisfied that Km. Babboo (P. W. 6) is reliable and her statement establishes that the deceased left the house of Sumera in the company of the appellants on the evening of July 23. 13. The third circumstance sought to be established by the prosecution is that the deceased was seen going towards the house of the appellants in their company that evening. This fact is deposed to by P. W. 4 Ram Kishun alias Gaddu and P. W. 11 Babu Lal. Ram Kishun stated that on the evening when Smt. Manni disappeared he had seen the two appellants and Smt. Manni going together towards the house of Paras Ram. Suit. Manni had a small bundle under her arm. He further stated that after sometime Suit. Ram Kishun stated that on the evening when Smt. Manni disappeared he had seen the two appellants and Smt. Manni going together towards the house of Paras Ram. Suit. Manni had a small bundle under her arm. He further stated that after sometime Suit. Manni's brother Kamla came looking for her and this witness told him that he had seen them going towards Paras Ram's house. Babu Lal (P. W. 11) has stated that he had seen the two appellants going towards Sadhu's house and Smt. Manni following them. He further stated that Suit. Manni's brother Kamla came there and enquired about his sister and he told him what he had seen. There appears to be no reason to disbelieve these two witnesses. They appear to be totally independent witnesses unconnected with the deceased or her family. Nothing has come out in their cross-examination to show that they had any motive to falsely implicate the appellants. Their statement is corroborated by the report Ex. Ka-5 which was made by Kamla on July 26 in which these two persons were cited as witnesses. These two witnesses are fully reliable and their testimony establishes that the deceased was seen going on the evening when she disappeared in the company of the two appellants, towards the house of the appellants. The houses of the appellants appear to be near each other. 14. The next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is that the appellant Paras Ram went on the night of the occurrence to the house of Babu Lal (P. W. 11) and took a spade from him. This fact is deposed to by Babu Lal (P. W. 11) . We have already observed that Babu Lal (P. W. 11) is a fully reliable witness. He has stated that after he had taken his meals, appellant Paras Ram came to his house and asked for a spade as he wanted to clear his drain which was overflowing with rain water. The witness gave Paras Ram his spade. The fact that appellant Paras Ram procured a spade that night is fully proved by the statement of Babu Lal (P. W. 11) . 15. The witness gave Paras Ram his spade. The fact that appellant Paras Ram procured a spade that night is fully proved by the statement of Babu Lal (P. W. 11) . 15. The next circumstance sought to be established is that appellant Sadhu after his arrest by the Station Officer made a statement that he had the key of the house of Paras Ram and that he would recover the dead body of Suit. Manni from the house of Paras Ram where it was buried. There are three facts which the prosecution seeks to establish, namely, (1) that Sadhti made a statement while in custody that he had the key to the house of Paras Ram and that he would recover the body of Smt. Manni from the house of Paras Ram, (2) the la:t that that Sadhu opened the lock of the house of Paras Ram with a key which was in his possession and (3) the fact that Sadhu went inside the house of Paras Ram and (lug out the body of Smt. Manni from a corner of one kothri. The fact of making the statement is proved by the evidence of R. K. Tewari (P. W. 15) , Sumera (P. W. 1) , Girja Prasad (P. 111- 3) and Rant Kishun (P. W. 4_. None of these witnesses had any reason to depose falsely against the appellants. The opening of the lock by Sadhu with a key taken out by hire from his possession is proved by the testimony of Girja Prasad (P, W. 3), Ram Kishun (P. 111. 4), Kamla (P. W. J) and R. K. Tewari (P. NV. 15). The fact that,' Saclhu took the Investigating Officer and the witnesses inside the house of Paras Ram, asked for a spade and dug out the body from a corner of one of the kothries of the house is proved by the statement of Girja Prasad (P. W. 3), Ram Kishun (P. W. 4) and R. K. Tewari (P. IV. 15). We have no reason to doubt the testimony of any of these witnesses and we are satisfied that all the three facts referred to above have been satisfactorily established. 16. 15). We have no reason to doubt the testimony of any of these witnesses and we are satisfied that all the three facts referred to above have been satisfactorily established. 16. Learned counsel for the appellants has strenuously contended that neither the first fact about the statement made by Sadhu nor the other two facts, namely, the opening of the lock by Sadhu and the recovery of the (lead body by him are admissible in evidence. The statement made by Sadhu can only be admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, which provides that "when any fact is deposed it 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". The objection is that the Investigating Officer already knew from the First Information Report that Sadhu appellant had confessed that the appellants had buried the body of the deceased in Paras Rain's house and therefore, the recovery could not be said to be a fact discovered in consequence of the information given to the Investigating Officer by Sadhu. We see no force in this contention. It is true that from the First Information Report the Investigating Officer came to know that Sadhu had stated that the body was buried in the house of Paras Ram but no recovery or discovery was made in pursuance of that statement. The statement did not disclose the exact place in the house of Paras Ram where the (lead body was buried and this was actually pointed out by Sadhu when he dug out the buried body. The discovery or recovery of the body was really in consequence of the information given by Sadhu to the Investigating Officer in the presence of the witnesses. We are, therefore, of the view that the statement of Sadhu relating to the discovery of the body is admissible in evidence. Even if we were to hold that this statement is not admissible it will make little difference as the same statement is also contained in the extra judicial confession which, as will presently be shown, is quite reliable. 17. Even if we were to hold that this statement is not admissible it will make little difference as the same statement is also contained in the extra judicial confession which, as will presently be shown, is quite reliable. 17. Even if the statement of appellant Sadhu to the Investigating Officer is held not to be admissible in evidence we are satisfied that the fact that Sadhu opened the lock of the house of Paras Ram with a key which was in his possession and the fact that he took the Investigating Officer and other witnesses inside the house and recovered the dead body are admissible independently of the statement which is sought to be proved under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. These two facts are clearly admissible under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, the relevant portion of which provides : "The conduct of any party, or any agent to any party, to any suit or proceeding, in reference to such suit or proceeding, or in reference to any fact in issue therein or relevant thereto, and the conduct of any person an offence against whom is the subject of any proceeding, is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto". 18. In Musammat Misri v. King Emperor, I.L.R. 31 Alld. 592 (F.B.) where it was charged with the murder of a girl and in the hope of pardon being given to her, she took the police to a place and pointed out and produced certain ornaments, which the deceased was wearing at the time of her death, it was held that the evidence was admissible to show that the accused did go to a certain place and there produced certain ornaments. The evidence was held admissible under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. 19. In Ganu Chandra Kashid v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1932 Bombay 286 where one of the accused in a dacoity case in which cash had been stolen produced his share of the Cash, Broom Field, J. held that the production of sums of money was admissible as conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. 20. In Emperor v. Nanua, A.I.R. 1941 Alld. 20. In Emperor v. Nanua, A.I.R. 1941 Alld. 145 where a similar contention was raised that the fact of recovery cannot be proved if the statement which led to the recovery was not admissible under Section 27, a Bench of this Court observed : "The difference between a statement and an act is in our opinion clear. A statement must consist of words, be they spoken, be they written, or be they spieled out, as would be done by a mute person who spells out words on his fingers, and we are inclined to think that even words would not always be statements, Acts however exclude words and in our opinion cannot be translated info words. For instance, if a person points out a place it is impossible to say ' neither had he spoken lie would have said "look there" or "dig ther" or "you will find there" or "I have buried there..." or "I have committed such and such a crime." We are unable to hold therefore that the fact that in the present case the appellant, by taking in his hands certain articles and handing them over, made a statement much less can we find that he made a statement which amounts to a confession. We come to the conclusion therefore that .......... Sec. S of the Evidence Act applies." 21. In Ram Kishan v. Bombay State, A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 104 the question arose whether the statement of the Investigating Officer that on a certain day the accused No. 1 made a certain statement in consequence of which he took the accused to Itawa and proceeded to a place Bhagwasi where the accused pointed out one Baliram who at the instance of the accused dug out from a mud house a tin box containing three revolvers and two tins containing live cartridges, was admissible or not. The Supreme Court observed referring to Section 27 of the Evidence Act "On a bare reading of the terms of the section it appears that what is allowed to be proved is the information or such part thereof as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered. The information would consist of a statement made by the accused to the police officer and the police officer is obviously precluded from proving the information or part thereof unless it comes within the four corners of the section. The information would consist of a statement made by the accused to the police officer and the police officer is obviously precluded from proving the information or part thereof unless it comes within the four corners of the section. If the police officer wants to prove the information or a part thereof, the Court would have to consider whether it relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered and allow the proof thereof only if that condition was satisfied. If however the Police Officer does not want to prove the information or any part thereof, Section 27 does not come into operation at all. What was stated by the Investigating Officer Hujur Ahmad Khan in the present case was that certain information was supplied to him by the accused I in consequence of which he took certain steps. He did not seek to prove that information or any part thereof in the evidence which he gave before the Court. "Even when he said that Baliram dug out the tin box from the mud floor of a house at the instance of the accused 1 he did not seek to prove what that information was. The operation of Section 27 was therefore not attracted and 'prima facie' there was nothing to prevent that evidence being admitted against the accused 1." 22. In Prabhoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh, A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1113 the accused made a statement to the Investigating Officer and in consequence thereof produced an axe and some blood stained clothes. The admissibility of the statement was challenged before the Supreme Court. It upheld the objection that the statement of the accused was not admissible as his statement had not led to any discovery. But the Supreme Court observed; that even if the statement were excluded there remained the evidence that the accused had produced from the house a blood stained axe and some blood stained clothes. 23. From all these authorities it is quite clear that even if the statement of the accused for some reason is not admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the fact discovered can be proved under Section 8 and if it is relevant it can be used against the accused. Therefore, in the present case the fact that Sadhu opened the lock of. Therefore, in the present case the fact that Sadhu opened the lock of. the house of Paras Ram with a key which was in his possession and the fact that he took the Investigating Officer and the witnesses to a kothri in the house of Paras Ram and from a corner thereof dug out the body of the deceased are admissible under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. They are relevant facts and can be used against the appellants. 24. One other circumstance against appellant Paras Ram is that he was absconding from the village from the night of occurrence and surrendered in court only on August 2, 1967 about, ten clays later. This fact is established from the evidence of the three brothers Sumera, Kamla and Budia who searched for the appellants in their village and other villages and by the statement of the Investigating Officer (P. W. 15) who also searched for Paras Ram on July 27, 1967 and thereafter. Paras Ram has stated that he was away from the village from two days prior to the date of occurrence. Another circumstance against the appellants is that they have given no explanation of their movements after they were last seen with the deceased which if accepted would prove their in nocence. In-fact they have falsely said that they did not take the deceased with them. 25. Now we come to extra judicial confession of appellant Sadhu. This is proved by the statement of P. W. I Sumera, P. 4'. 2 Baldeo Prasad, P. W. 5 Babu Lal, P. W. 9 Kamla, P. W. 10 Budia, P. W. 2 and P. W. 5 are independent witnesses. There appears no reason why they should falsely implicate the appellants in a murder case. P. Ws. 1, 9 and 10 have also no motive to falsely implicate the appellants. We are, therefore, fully satisfied that the appellants Sadhu made the extra judicial confession. In this he not only implicated himself but his co-accused Paras Rani. There appears no reason why they should falsely implicate the appellants in a murder case. P. Ws. 1, 9 and 10 have also no motive to falsely implicate the appellants. We are, therefore, fully satisfied that the appellants Sadhu made the extra judicial confession. In this he not only implicated himself but his co-accused Paras Rani. He has stated that the appellants had developed illicit intimacy with the deceased and the deceased was two months pregnant through them, that the two appellant took the deceased to the house of Paras Ram, that the deceased had brought some jewellery with her, that out of greed and to avoid the scandal of the pregnancy they killed Smt. Manni and buried the body in a pit in the house of Paras Ram. He further stated that Paras Ram had gone to sell the jewellery and had left the key of his house with him. We are fully satisfied that Sadhu made this confession in the presence of the witnesses named above. It appears from the statements of these witnesses that Sadhu made the confession after some persuation by these witnesses. It was urged that the confession was obtained by some inducement and was hit by Section 24 of the Evidence Act. It was contended that Baldeo Prasad P. W. 2 who admitted that he had been a Panchayat Secretary was a person in authority within the meaning of Section 24 and the confession was made on an inducement offered by him. The argument is without any force. Baldeo Prasad has stated that for the last two years he has been carrying on the profession of a cultivator and before that he was a Panchayat Secretary in. Madhya Pradesh. Even if a Panchayat Secretary of Madhya Pradesh could be deemed to be a person in authority, as to which we express no opinion., Baldeo Prasad was not a Panchayat Secretary at the time when the confession at the time when the confession was made by Sadhu. The confession is not hit by Section 24 and is relevant. There is no reason for not placing reliance on this extra-judicial confession even though Sadhu ha s denied having made it. 26. Against Sadhy the prosecution has proved that he made an extra-judicial confession before several persons. The confession implicates this appellant fully in the crime and is reliable and can be acted upon. There is no reason for not placing reliance on this extra-judicial confession even though Sadhu ha s denied having made it. 26. Against Sadhy the prosecution has proved that he made an extra-judicial confession before several persons. The confession implicates this appellant fully in the crime and is reliable and can be acted upon. It is corroborated in material particulars connecting this appellant with the crime by the several circumstances which have been fully established against him. These circumstances are : (i) that Sadhu and Paras Ram were intimate with the deceased who had become pregnant through them; (ii) that Sadhu and Paras Ram came in the evening when the deceased was milking goats and the deceased went away with them; (iii) That Sadhu and Paras Ram were seen going with the deceased toward, their houses; (iv) that Sadhu had the key of the house of Paras Ram and with it he opened the lock of the house after his arrest; (v) that Sadhu dug out the body of the deceased from a corner of one of the rooms of the house of Paras Rain; (vi) that before the opening of the lock and recovery of the body Sadhu stated that the body was buried in the house of Paras Ram and that he would recover it. These circumstances by themselves, even apart from the confession, establish the guilt of Sadhu. They are inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of his innocence. There is the further circumstance that Sadhu has not offered any explanation which, if accepted, would be consistent with his innocence. In Leonandan Misra v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 801, the Supreme Court has observed : "............ in a case like this where the various links as stated above have been satisfactorily made out and the circumstances point to the appellant as the probable assailant, with reasonable definiteness and in proximity to the deceased as regards time and situation, and he offers no explanation, which if accepted, though not proved, would afford a reasonable basis for a conclusion on the entire case consistent with his innocence, such absence of explanation or false explanation would itself be an additional link which completes the chain." The complicity of appellant Sadhu in the murder of Smt. Munni has been fully established by the prosecution. 27. 27. Against Paras Ram the prosecution has established the following circumstances; (i) that Sadhu and Paras Ram were intimate with the deceased who had become pregnant through them; (ii) that Sadhu and Paras Rain came in the evening when the deceased was milking goats and the deceased went away with them; (iii) that Sadhu and Paras Ram were seen going with the deceased towards their houses; (iv) that on the night of the murder Paras Ram procured a spade from P. W. 11 Babu Lal : (v) that the body of the deceased was recovered from the house of Paras Ram; (vi) that Paras Ram absconded after the murder and surrendered in court on August 2, 1967 ten days later; (vii) that Paras Ram has offered no explanation, which, if accepted, would be consistent with his innocence and he made a false statement that he was not present in the village on the day of occurrence. 28. These circumstances complete the chain against Paras Ram and are consistent with his guilt alone and inconsistent with his innocence. The prosecution has succeeded in proving that Paras Ram also participated in the murder of Smt. Munni. The confession of Sadhu co-accused lends further assurance, if it is required, to this conclusion. 29. The appeal is dismissed. There is no extenuating circumstance warranting the giving of the lesser sentence to the appellants. The reference made by the Sessions judge is accepted and the sentences of death awarded to appellants Paras Ram and Sadhu are confirmed.