JUDGMENT Arunachalam, J. : The appellants Karuppasamy and Chinnagurusamy, who are cousins, their fathers being brothers were tried in S.C.No.246 of 1983 on the file of the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, under two charges. 2. The first charge against the appellants was framed for an offence under Sec.302, Indian Penal Code read with Sec.34, Indian Penal Code, on the allegation that on 27th December, 1982 at about 9.00 A.M., at a place east of South Vandanam Village, they caused the death of Muthiah (hereinafter referred to as D.l) by cutting him with aruvals resulting in his instantaneous death. 3. The second charge was framed against the appellants for an offence under Sec.302, Indian Penal Code read with Sec.34, Indian Penal Code for having caused the death of Athiappan (hereinafter referred to as D.2) by cutting him with aruvals in the course of the same transaction referred to in the first charge. Athiappan died at the Government Headquarters Hospital, Tuticorin at 5.15 P.M., on the same day. 4. The trial Court found the appellants guilty of both the charges, convicted them and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life under each count, the sentences to run concurrently. 5. The prosecution case can now be narrated. D1, D2 (deceased), and P.Ws.1 to 3 are the Harijan residents of South Vandanam village situated at a distance of 20 Kms., from Eppothumvendran police station in Ottapidaram circle, Tuticorin district. The appellants are “Thevars” residing in the same village. There has been strained relationship between Harijans and Thevars of South Vandanam village, P.W.12 Mariappa Thevar, a resident of Savalperi had taken a lease a land with Velikaruvai trees’ stem, situated at a distance of two miles from South Vandanam village, to cut the stems and sell them. P.W.12, used to engage the Harijans and Thevars of South Vandanam village and Govindanpatti on daily wage basis to cut the stems. D2 Athiappan was working as Maistry under P.W.12. D.2 used to collect the daily wages from P.W.12 in a lump sum and distribute it to the labourers on the basis of the work done by each of them depending on the weight of the stems that were cut. D2 Athiappan was working as Maistry under P.W.12. D.2 used to collect the daily wages from P.W.12 in a lump sum and distribute it to the labourers on the basis of the work done by each of them depending on the weight of the stems that were cut. Two months prior to the occurrence the Thevars of South Vandanam village to cut the bigger stems resulting in their getting higher wages, while the Harijans had to necessarily cut the smaller stems, thus being deprived of substantial wages due to the lesser weight of the smaller stems. The cause of the dissatisfied Harijan Workers was represented to P.W.12 by D2 who stopped the Thevars of South Vandanam Village inclusive of the appellants from doing coolie work in the leased lands. However, P.W.12 not having supported the prosecution, has been treated hostile. 6. On 26.12.1982 at 6.00 A.M., the day prior to the occurrence, P.W.11 Kaliappan, a Harijan was watering the lands taken on lease by him. At that time, Irulappa Thevar, the father of the first appellant who reached the land of P.W.11 abused him by his caste questioning about the need to take water. Irulappa Thevar also beat on the waist of P.W.11 twice with a vel stick which did not have the knife portion. When P.W.11 attempted to run back to the village, Irulappa Thevar again abused him with reference to his caste. At the village P.W.11 decided to give a complaint against Irulappa Thevar concerning the aforementioned incident at the “Eppothumvendran” police station. With this object, he along with P.Ws.1 to 3, and Dl and D2were proceeding to Kariyapatti to board a bus to reach the police station. On the way to Kariyapatti, the appellants were coming the opposite direction in a bullock cart. The second appellant questioned the prosecution groupas to whether they were going to the police station and that they would atleast kill four of them. The second deceased replied that it would be far better to be done to death like that rather than living a life constant fear of the appellants, day in and day out. After this wordy altercation, P.W.11 and his group reached the police station and the written complaint Ex.P10 preferred by P.W.ll was registered as crime No.168 of 1982 on the file of the “Eppothumvendran” Police Station by P.W.18 Malaya Pillai, the Head constable. After this wordy altercation, P.W.11 and his group reached the police station and the written complaint Ex.P10 preferred by P.W.ll was registered as crime No.168 of 1982 on the file of the “Eppothumvendran” Police Station by P.W.18 Malaya Pillai, the Head constable. After investigation Ex.P10 led to a chargesheet being filed in the Court of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (P.C.R.) Tirunelveli in C.C.No. 16 of 1983. After trial, Irulappa Thevar was acquitted by the judgment dated 26th December, 1983, which was subsequent to the occurrence in this case. The copy of the judgment of the trial Court has been marked as Ex.D4. 7. The two fold motive narrated earlier is said to have led to the occurrence at 9.00 AM. on 27.12.1982 in a field, east of South Vandanam Village P.Ws.1 to 4 along with D1 and D2 were proceeding as usual to the lands situated two miles east of the village for cutting the stems of the Karuvd trees taken on lease by P.W.12. They were proceeding from west to east and as usual they had spades, crowbars, vettu aruvals to cut the stems. Each one of them was also carrying their launcheon packets. At a distance half a furlong away from South Vandanam Village, the appellants came from the opposite direction armed with aruvals M.Os.2 and 1 respectively. In the prosecution group D1 Muthiah was proceeding first followed by the others at a distance of about 10 feet. The first appellant questioning D1 as to whether they were so arrogant, cut him on the left shoulder with the aruval. Again the first appellant cut D1 on the left flank twice. The aluminium tiffin carrier held by D1 in his left hand fell down. So also the spade hanging on the right shoulder of D1 also fell down; At this stage, the second appellant cut D1 on the back of his neck stating that he must die with that cut. D2 Athiappan who was following D1 shouted at the accused and attempted to catch them. The second appellant cut D2 Athiappan on his right shoulder with his aruval M.O.1. When the second appellant attempted to cut D2 again, the latter warded off the cut with his left hand resulting in an injury to the left forearm. The first appellant cut D2 on the right side head above the right ear with his aruval M.O.2. The second appellant cut D2 Athiappan on his right shoulder with his aruval M.O.1. When the second appellant attempted to cut D2 again, the latter warded off the cut with his left hand resulting in an injury to the left forearm. The first appellant cut D2 on the right side head above the right ear with his aruval M.O.2. The brain substance of D2 was visible outside. P.Ws.1 to 4 and one Chinnamalayappan Chettiar, questioning the accused, chased them. The appellants escaped and ran away from the scene southwards. D1 Muthiah fell down at the spotanddied P.W.4 Subbiah The var who was also examined as one of the eye witnesses alongwith P.Ws.1 to 3 did not support the prosecution case and was treated hostile. P.W.1, tied the head injury of D2 Athiappan with his towel M.O.6 and M.O.8 the towel of D2. He also tied the injury on the right shoulder of D2 with M.Os.7 and 9 the towels of P.Ws.2 and 3 respectively. P.Ws.1 to 3 lifted and put the injured D2 in the bullock cart of one Mariappan, not examined. In the process of lifting D2, M.O.10 the Kaki shirt of P.W.1 became blood stained. D2 was taken in the bullock cart upto Kalingapatti from where he was put in the line motor bus and and taken to the Eppothumvendran Police Station. P.W.18 Thiru Malayapillai, Head constable attached to the Eppothumvendran Police Station was present when P.Ws.1 to 3 brought the injured D2 to the police station. The complaint narrated by D2 Athiappan was reduced into writing by P.W.18 and after confirming the correctness of the contents, obtaining the left thumb impression of D2 in Ex.P1, which is the first information report. Ex.P1 was attested by P.W.1 and the Village Administration Officer of Eppothumvendran who happened to be present at the police station then. P.W.18 registered Ex.P1 as Crime No.169/82 for offences under Secs.302 and 307, Indian Penal Code. He prepared the printed F.I.R. Ex.P21 with copies, and sent them to the higher authorities and Court. Ex.P1 and P21 were despatched to the Court of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Vilathikulam through P.W.7 Thiru Sudalaiandi P.C.No.734. P.W.7, who received Exs.P1 and P21 at 2.30 P.M., according to him from P.W.19, the investigating officer, proceeded to the Court of Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Vilathikulam. Ex.P1 and P21 were despatched to the Court of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Vilathikulam through P.W.7 Thiru Sudalaiandi P.C.No.734. P.W.7, who received Exs.P1 and P21 at 2.30 P.M., according to him from P.W.19, the investigating officer, proceeded to the Court of Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Vilathikulam. At Vilathikulam, he learnt from the Court clerk that the Magistrate was on leave and his functions were being discharged by the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Kovilpatti, who was in additional charge. P.W.7, thereafter proceeded to Kovilpatti and handed over Exs.P1 and P21 to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate at 6.00 P.M. P.W.18, the Head constable informed P.W.19 Thiru Thangarose, Inspector of Police, Ottapidaram over V.H.F., about this crime. While on the way to the Eppothuvendran Police Station from Ottapidaram, P.W.19 saw P.Ws.1 to 3, D2 Athiappan and P.W.5 Thiru Shanmugasundaram, P.C.3377 at the Eppothumvendran bus stop. At the bus stop P.W.18, the Head Constable handed over to P.W.19 a copy of the first information report and returned to the police station. P.W.9 took up investigation and examined the injured D2. Athiappan at the bus stop and recorded his statement Ex.P22. He directed P.Ws.1 to 3 and P.W.5 to admit D2 Athiappan in the Government Hospital, Tuticorin and come to South Vandanam Village. P.W.5, Thiru Shanmugasundaram P.C.3377 handed over Ex.P2, the memo to P.W.6, the Medical Officer attached to the Government Hospital, Tuticorin, to examine and treat the injured D2. P.W.5, took M.Os.6 to 9 from the body of the injured D2 and produced them at Eppothumvendran Police Station. 8. P.W.6 Dr.Appanraj, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Headquarters Hospital, Tuticorin, examined D.Z Athiappan at 3.15 P.M., on 27.12.1982 and found on his the following injuries as described by him in detail in Ex.P3 the wound certificate: “1. An oblique wound measuring 9” x 2“x 2” is present on the right lower eyelid up to occipital region clinically fracture temporal pareital bonbrain, matter is seen outside. 2. An oblique wound measuring 6“x 3” x 3“is present on the right shoulder. Exposing the right humerus fracture. 3. An abrasion 2”x l“x 1” is present on the left forearm”. It was stated to the Doctor that D2 had sustained injuries at 8.00 a.m. on 27.12.1982 due to cut with veechu aruval. Injuries 1 and 2 in Ex.P3 were grievous while the 3rd was simple. Exposing the right humerus fracture. 3. An abrasion 2”x l“x 1” is present on the left forearm”. It was stated to the Doctor that D2 had sustained injuries at 8.00 a.m. on 27.12.1982 due to cut with veechu aruval. Injuries 1 and 2 in Ex.P3 were grievous while the 3rd was simple. P.W.6, Dr.Appanraj sent the intimation Ex.P4 to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Tuticorin to record the dying declaration of D2 Athiappan, P.W.17 Thiru Thangaperuaml, Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Tuticorin on receipt of Ex.P4 at 4.10 P.M., reached the Government Headquarters Hospital, Tuticorin, soon thereafter and recorded Ex.P20, the dying declaration of D2 Athiappan to his narration at 4.25 P.M. The left thumb impression of D2 was obtained in Ex.P20. P.W.6 Dr.Appanraj, has appended his certificate Exs.P5 to P20 certifying that the injured was conscious during the time of recording of the statement. In the meanwhile, P.W.19 Thiru Thangarose, the Investigating Officer reached the scene of occurrence at 3.30 P.M. and prepared the observation mahazar Ex.P23. He also drew the scene sketch EX.P24. Between 4.15 and 7.00 P.M. on 27.12.1982, he conducted the inquest on the corpse of D1 Muthiahand Ex.P25 is the inquest report. During the inquest, he examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and 11. From the scene of occurrence, he seized the aluminium vessel M.O.3, the bloodstained spade M.O.4 and M.O.19 the sample earth under mahazar Ex.P16. At about 7.30 P.M., he seized M.O.5 the eversilver tiffin box and blood-stained earth M.O.18 from the ridge under mahazar Ex.P27. He searched for the accused but they were absconding. After inquest, he send the dead body of D1 Muthiah through P.W.9, a police constable along with requisition Ex.P8 to the Government Hospital, Ottapidaram for the conduct of postmortem. P.W.10, Dr.Muniandi, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital Ottapidaram conducted postmortem on the body of D1 Muthiah at 11.30 A.M. on 28.12.1982 and found the following externaland internal injuries described by him in detail in Ex.P9, the postmortem certifciate. “Injuries: 1. Left upper limb severed and completely cut off except (in the supination of) the skin in front. Irregular shaped on the deltoid 5“diameter (in which all the muscles, nerves, vessels, etc. cut). 2. A cut injury on the left serratus anterior region 6” x 4“upto the ribs 5, 6, 7th. 3. “Injuries: 1. Left upper limb severed and completely cut off except (in the supination of) the skin in front. Irregular shaped on the deltoid 5“diameter (in which all the muscles, nerves, vessels, etc. cut). 2. A cut injury on the left serratus anterior region 6” x 4“upto the ribs 5, 6, 7th. 3. An open cut injury from the xyphisternum upto the midline of the back (except 4” from the midline of the back), on seeing from the above the following organs are seen, in the thoracic cavity (a) left long (b) heart, diaphragm cut and the spleen (abdomen) intestine left out from the abdomen. Curved shaped 18“x 3” abdominal content. 4. A cut injury in the back of the neck from the upper part of the occiptal region to the base of the neck in front except the skin. On seeing from the back 6“x 6” x all the structures of the neck completely cut; hyoid bone broken into pieces and the right ear cut. Internal: Left diaphragm peritonial cavity contains blood stained fluid. On opening the thoracic cavity from the 5th rib to all lower ribs are cut. Heart: Chambers empty 90 grams with covering. Lungs: Right 360, Left 300 grams pale on cut section. Stomach: Partly digested food. Weight 80 grams and punctured. Liver: 900 grams pale on cut section. Gall Bladder: Punctured empty; Hyoid bone broken into pieces. Spleen 90 grams pale on cut section. Kidneys: each 90 grams on cut section. Intestines: small and large intestines are teared. Small intestiness 2“x 1/2” intestinal content. Large intestine 3“x 1/2” xcontent. Bladder: full of urine; Head: no fracture in the skull or heart on opening. Brain: 950 grams. No injury in the brain.” P.W.10 opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to fatal injuries numbers 1 and 3, and the internal injuries corresponding to external injury No.3 External and Internal injuries could have been caused by weapons like M.Os.l and 2 and the death would have occurred 26 to 28 hours prior to postmortem. After postmortem, M.Os.ll, 12 and 17 the clothings and waist-cord of D1 were handed over at the Eppothumvendran Police Station by P.W.9. 9. D2 Athiappan succumbed to his injuries at the Government Headquarters Hospital, Tuticorrin at 5.15 P.M. on 27.12.1982. After postmortem, M.Os.ll, 12 and 17 the clothings and waist-cord of D1 were handed over at the Eppothumvendran Police Station by P.W.9. 9. D2 Athiappan succumbed to his injuries at the Government Headquarters Hospital, Tuticorrin at 5.15 P.M. on 27.12.1982. P.W.15 Thiru Janakiraman, Grade I Police Constable received the death intimation of D2 at 11.15 P.M. on 27.12.1982 from the Tuticorin South Police Station through P.C.768. He sent Ex.P15, the express report to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Vilathikulam which contains the death intimation. 10. P.W.19, the Inspector of Police conducted the inquest on the corpse of D2 Athiappan between 7.00 AM. and 10.00 A.M. on 28.12.1982 at the Government Headquarters Hospital, Tuticorin. Ex.P28 is the inqeust report. He examined P.Ws.1 to 4 during the inquest. Ex.P28 was despatched through P.W.14 Police Constable by P.W.19 to the Court of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Vilathikulam. Since the concerned Magistrate was on leave P.W.14 handed it over to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Kovilpatti who was in charge of the Vilathikulam Court at 11.00 P.M. on the same night. After inquest, P.W.19, sent the body of Athiappan through the police constable P.W.7 under requisition Ex.P6 to the Government Headquarters Hospital, Tuticorin for the conduct of postmortem. P.W.8, Dr.Manavalan, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Headquarters Hospital, Tuticorin conducted the postmortem on the dead of Athiappan D2 at 12.15 P.M. on 28.12.1982. He noticed the following three injuries on the dead body which have been described in detail in Ex.P7, the post mortem certificate. “Injuries: 1. Curved gaping incised wound extending from the right eye naterio-posteriorly 12” x 3“brain substance seen outside, of right frontal bone extending from the lateral angle of right arbit to front temporal suture line. Fracture of temporal bone in its middle portion in the sequamous part, present. Subdural haematoma present in the right temporal lobe of brain. 2. Gaping incised wound 8” x 5“enters into the thoracic cavity over the anterior border of right shoulder. Complete fracture upper end of right humerus present. Corresponding to this injury there is a tear l“xl“xl“ in the upper lobe of right lung present 200 ml., of dark coloured blood seen in the thoracic cavity. 3. Lacerated wound 2“x 2“x 1“in the ulnar border of left forearm present. Hyoid bone intact“. In the opinion of the doctor, the deceased would appear to have died of injury to vital organs haemorrhage and shock. 3. Lacerated wound 2“x 2“x 1“in the ulnar border of left forearm present. Hyoid bone intact“. In the opinion of the doctor, the deceased would appear to have died of injury to vital organs haemorrhage and shock. Injuries 1 and 2 were necessarily fatal and all the injuries could have been caused by weapons like M.Os.l and 2. 11. After postmortem P.W.7 handed over M.Qs.13 to 15 the clothings of the deceased at the Eppothumvendran Police Station. 12. On 3.1.1983, the appellants surrendered before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Tirunelveli. P.W.19 filed a petition before the said Magistrate on 10.1.1983 praying for police custody and obtained such custody on 19.1.1983. It was the case of P.W.19 that soon after he obtained police custody he examined the first appellant who volunteered a statement, the admissible portion of which has been marked as Ex.11. Al in pursuance of his statement took P.W.l is and his party to the well of one Chellaiah Thevar situated at a distance of three furlongs and produced M.O.2 aruval from a thorny bush situated south-west of the well. M.O.2 was seized under mahazar Ex.P13 attested by P.W.13, Revenue Inspector and another. A similar statement was volunteered by the second appellant at 5.00 P.M., the admissible portion of which is marked as Ex.P12. In pursuance of the statement, the second appellant took P.W.19 and his party to a place 3 1/2 furlongs away from the place of occurrence and produced M.O.1 aruval from a thorny bush situated 40 ft. north-west of the well of Mangalasundari Ammal. M.O.1 was seized under mahazar Ex.P14 attested by P.W.13 and another. 13. P.W.16, Thiru Shanmugavelayutham, the Head Clerkattached to the Court of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Vilathikulam on receipt of Ex.P16, the requisition to forward the material objects seized during investigation for chemical examination, on the direction of the Presiding Officer had them so despatched. Exs.P18 and P19 are the reports of the Chemical Examiner and Serologist respectively. It is seen from the reports that M.Os.2, 3, 6, 8, 10, 12 to 14, 18 and 19 contained human blood, the grouping of which could not be feasible while M.Os. 1, 5, 7, 9 and 11 contained Blood of B Group. 14. P.W.19 after completing investigation filed the charge sheet against the appellants on 27.2.1983 before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Vilathikulam. 15. 1, 5, 7, 9 and 11 contained Blood of B Group. 14. P.W.19 after completing investigation filed the charge sheet against the appellants on 27.2.1983 before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Vilathikulam. 15. The appellants when questioned by the trial Court under Sec.313, Criminal Procedure Code on the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence, they denied their complicity in the crime and filed a written statement. Though the defence did not examine any witness on their side, they have marked Exs.Dl to D4. Exs.Dl to D3 relate to the evidence of P.W.ll Kaliappan in C.C.No.16 of 1983, referred to earlier while Ex.D4 is the judgment in the said case. In the written statement, they have stated that they never went to cut Karuvel stems at any point of time. Dl and D2 were arrack distillers in the Karuvel forest. P.Ws.1 to 3 did not do coolie work of cutting stems. In the dections the appellants worked for the Congress candidate O.S.Veluchami while P.Ws.1 to 3 supported Appadurai, the Communist candidate who won in the election. This has resulted in political animosity against the appellants and one Ramar, the Secretary of Appadurai was responsible for falsely implicating them in this crime. 16. The trial Court on a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, concluded that the prosecution had established its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and recorded convictions and sentence as stated earlier. 17. Mr.G.Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants had put forth several contentions to attack the truth of the prosecution version. (Contentions relating to facts omitted - Ed.) 20. In respective of the motive, he would submit that Exs.Dl to D4 would probabilise the hand of Raman behind this prosecution and in any event there cannot be a motive against Dl and D2 alone. He would fervently plead that if the motive was true, in Ex.P10, the prosecution party would not have omitted to mention the alleged intimidation by the appellants on, their way to the police station to lodge Ex.P 10. He would fervently plead that if the motive was true, in Ex.P10, the prosecution party would not have omitted to mention the alleged intimidation by the appellants on, their way to the police station to lodge Ex.P 10. Finally, about the recovery of the weapons M.Os.l and 2 in pursuance of the statements of the appellants recorded under Sec.27 of the Indian Evidence Act, he would contend that the obtaining of the police custody after the expiry of 15 days was not in conformity with Sec.167, Criminal Procedure Code and the recovery has to be rejected on this sole ground. He would sum up. and submit that in view of the serious infirmities pointed out by him, the appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt. 21. Per contra, Thiru A.N.Rajan, appearing for the respondent would contend that in this case of a daylight occurrence three eye witnesses have supported the prosecution case and their evidence had not been shaken in cross-examination to the extent of discrediting their versions. (Contentions of facts omitted - Ed.) 23. We will initially take up for consideration the coular testimony regarding the occurrence. Though P.Ws.1 to 4 were put as eye witnesses P.W.4 belonging to the Thevar community, did not support the prosecution case. The reason is not far to seek since P.W.4 belongs to the community of the accused. Even otherwise we can exclude the evidence of P.W.4 since his name does not find a place in Ex.Pl, the earliest statement regarding the incident. xx xx xx 25. P.Ws.1 to 3 have given cogent and consistent versions about the occurrence as it had happened. Nothing very serious had been elicited in cross-examination to discredit their versions. We are satisfied that P.Ws.1 to 3 were speaking the truth and in spite of their interestedness their versions are unscathed after the test of meticulous scrutiny by us. We accept their evidence and hold that they had spoken the truth. 26. We will now pass on to the consideration of the three dying declarations, Exs.Pl, P22 and P20. xx xx xx If we take into consideration, the physical health condition of D2, who died sometime after the recording of Ex.P20, we cannot expect that he must give his statement in a sequence with arithmetical precision right from the initiation to the end of the occurrence. xx xx xx If we take into consideration, the physical health condition of D2, who died sometime after the recording of Ex.P20, we cannot expect that he must give his statement in a sequence with arithmetical precision right from the initiation to the end of the occurrence. The certificate appended by the Medical Officer taken in consonance with the recording of the dying declaration by the Judicial Officer, stamps Exs.P20 with absolute genuineness and proclaims the truth of its contents. ………… 32. The last question to be considered is about the recovery of M.Os.l and 2 in pursuance of the statement recorded under Sec.27 of the Indian Evidence Act from the appellants. The trial Court in paragraphs 33 of its judgment has observed that no importance could be attached to the seizure of M.Os.l and 2 by P.W.19 at the alleged instance of the appellants. The appellants had surrendered before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Tirunelveli on 3.1.1983 and were remanded. On 10.1.1983, P.W.19 had filed a petition for police custody before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Vilathikulam and in pursuance thereof obtained police custody of the appellants on 19.1.1983 at or about 3.15 P.M. It is hence obvious that the police custody on 19.1.1983 is after 15 days from the date of initial surrender and remand on 3.1.1983. Sec.167(2), Criminal Procedure Code which is relevant for disposal of this argument runs thus: “(2) The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may, whether he has or has not jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time, authorise the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole; and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers further detention unnecessary, he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction. Provided that: (a) the Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in the custody of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days, if he is satisfied that the adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused person in custody under this paragraph for a total period exceeding…….” A reading of the proviso (a) of Sec.167(2), Criminal Procedure Code makes it clear that the detention of the accused person by Magistrate beyond the period of 15 days can only be “otherwise than in the custody of the police”. Therefore, after 15 days, the custody that is possible excludes police custody (i.e. the police custody can be allowed only during the period within the initial 15 days of remand period). The Court will have no power to remand the accused to police custody beyond the initial 15 days, since the power to remand to police custody has to be expressly conferred and cannot be in the realm of inference. 33. While considering Sec.167, Criminal Procedure Code we have to refer to Sec.57 of the Code which specifies that a person arrested cannot be detained for more than 24 hours, by a police officer and he has to forward the person so arrested to the nearest Judicial Magistrate. The necessity of producing the accused together with the relevant documents before a Magistrate if the investigation cannot be completed within 24 hours is the underlying purpose of this section. Sec.l67(2) of the Code takes in its fold the authority to detain the accused in such custody as the Magistrate thinks fit for a term not exceeding 15 days in the whole. This custody can be police custody, Judicial custody, or custody in mental asylum, children's home or vigilance home as the case may be. The Magistrate has a choice to determine about the type of custody to be granted within the first fifteen days including police custody. For the first 24 hours a person can be detained by a police officer and later he can be detained or kept in custody only under the order of a Judicial Magistrate. Within the initial 15 days, to the nature of custody can be altered from time to time. Subsequently, in view of the specific mandate of the Proviso (a) of Sec.167(2), Criminal Procedure Code police custody does not appear to be possible. Within the initial 15 days, to the nature of custody can be altered from time to time. Subsequently, in view of the specific mandate of the Proviso (a) of Sec.167(2), Criminal Procedure Code police custody does not appear to be possible. Since the police custody had been obtained after the statutory period of 15 days the police custody is illegal. As rightly held by the trial Court, we are not attaching any importance to the recovery of M.Os.l and 2 and the seizure of the clothes of the accused. 34. We have carefully looked into the decisions reported in Balak Ram etc. v. The State of U.P. Balak Ram etc. v. The State of U.P. A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 2165: 1974 Crl.L.J. 1486: 1974 S.C.C. (Crl.) 837, K.R.Reddy and Ismail Ali v. State of Assam Ismail Ali v. State of Assam (1987)3 Crimes. 115 cited by the learned counsel for the appellants on the aspect of acceptance or rejection of dying declarations. We have already stated our reasons for accepting Ex.Pl and P20 and on the facts of this case, the decisions aforementioned cannot be of any use to the appellants. 35. We entirely agree with the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate that the oral evidence is in conformity with the dying declarations, which we have accepted and that the truth had been placed before the Court by the prosecution regarding the attack on both the deceased. The oral evidence, the medical evidence and the dying declarations corroborate each other and they form a safe basis to confirm the convictions recorded by the trial Court. The sentences awarded are only the lesser sentences prescribed by law. We confirm the convictions and sentences imposed by the trial Court on the appellants. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. B.S. ----- Appeal dismissed.