Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 344 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Sahdevsinh Ramsinh Solanki

2017-02-10

AKIL ABDUL HAMID KURESHI, BIREN VAISHNAV

body2017
JUDGMENT : Akil Abdul Hamid Kureshi, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the State challenging the judgment of acquittal of the learned Sessions Judge, Bhuj in Sessions Case No. 75 of 1990, insofar as original accused No. 1 and 2. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution version was that deceased P.M. Saija was an officer of Gujarat Electricity Board ('GEB' for short) and at the relevant time, was posted at Bhuj. He was residing in the official quarter at GEB colony, Bhuj. The original accused, seven in number, were also the employees of GEB. They were active members of a union of GEB. In the process of representing the issues of the employees, the accused had in the past, friction with said Shri Saija. Keeping grudge about the past incidences, on 08.08.1990, accused No. 1 and accused No. 2 entered the house of Shri Saija with knives and brutally attacked him causing his death. According to the prosecution, the remaining accused Nos. 3 to 7 were part of a conspiracy to commit murder of Shri Saija. Accused No. 1 and accused No. 2 were therefore charged for offences under section 302 and 449 of Indian Penal Code. The remaining accused were charged for offence under section 302 with the aid of section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. A charge to this effect was framed at Exh. 1. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted all the accused. The State appeal is confined to original accused No. 1 and 2. 3. We may record the gist of evidence. Shekharan Govindan Nair, PW-23, Exh. 99, was the personal assistant of Shri Saija and he was the first one to see the dead-body. He deposed that at the relevant time, he was the PA to Shri Saija. Shri Saija was to attend a meeting at Rajkot on 09.08.1990. He was called by Shri Saija at his house on 08.08.1990. He had gone there at about 8:30. He went there and rang the doorbell, but there was no response. He peeped into the house from half open main door and could see someone lying on the floor with legs exposed. He realized that something untoward had happened. He therefore rushed to the house of Shri Machchhar (another officer residing in the same colony) and informed him about the incident. He peeped into the house from half open main door and could see someone lying on the floor with legs exposed. He realized that something untoward had happened. He therefore rushed to the house of Shri Machchhar (another officer residing in the same colony) and informed him about the incident. He also called the watchman and other employees of GEB and instructed one of them to call the Inspector. He and Shri Machchhar went to the house of Shri Saija and saw that Shri Saija was lying on the floor in a pool of blood. They found marks of shoes there. He produced a copy of a letter dated 12.07.1990 written by Shri Saija to the Chief Engineer of GEB, in which, he had complained about a group of people belonging to Darbar community who had threatened him during his posting at Gondal. In the cross-examination, this witness however agreed that in his police statement, he had not referred to the office copy of the said letter being with him. 4. Shantilal Machchhar, PW-1, Exh. 25, resided in the same colony where Shri Saija lived. He was the Executive Engineer posted at Bhuj at the relevant time. He deposed that the GEB office and colony were both situated in the same campus on Madhapar road. There were two gates for entering the office. The colony also had two gates, one towards the office, the other towards the western side on the gate at the office. At the western gate, watchman is posted only from 10 at night till 6 in the morning. The colony gate has two parts. The main gate is for the vehicles which is normally closed, the smaller gate is for pedestrians. Shri Saija lived in the first house in the colony. On 8th August, at night, when he was at his home, Shri Shekharan came to his house at about 8:30 to quarter to 9 and informed him about finding Shri Saija on the floor in his house. He therefore rushed to the place and found that Shri Saija was lying on the floor in a pool of blood. He had injuries caused by sharp weapon. On the carpet footprints stained with blood could be seen. He immediately rushed to the Bhuj City police station where his complaint was registered. Shri Saija lived alone in the quarter. He therefore rushed to the place and found that Shri Saija was lying on the floor in a pool of blood. He had injuries caused by sharp weapon. On the carpet footprints stained with blood could be seen. He immediately rushed to the Bhuj City police station where his complaint was registered. Shri Saija lived alone in the quarter. In the cross-examination, he agreed that he could not state whether the footprints on the carpet could have been made by shoes, slippers, sandals or barefoot. 5. PW-8, Exh. 41, Kantilal Damjibhai, was the watchman at GEB office, Bhuj. He had also rushed to the house of Shri Saija as soon as he learnt about the unfortunate incident. 6. Ramjibhai Kapadia, PW-9, Exh. 42, was also employed as the Executive Engineer, GEB. From June 1989, he was posted at Gondal when Shri Saija was posted as a Superintending Engineer. He deposed that Shri Saija was transferred from Gondal to Bhuj on 09.03.1990. According to him, the accused including the accused No. 1 had threatened Shri Saija in connection with transfer of one officer Shri Kataria. He had referred to another incident at Rajkot when this very accused had come in conflict with Shri Saija. Once when he and Shri Saija had gone to Rajkot in connection with official work, Sahdevsinh (accused No. 1), Hardevsinh, Bhagirathsinh and Jayendrasinh had abused them. On 28.06.1989 in his presence, Hardevsinh and Harishsinh had gone to the office of Shri Saija and once again there was friction. On 31.08.1989, once again these people had gathered in the compound of the office. He had feared for the safety of Shri Saija and therefore had gone to drop him at Virpur bus stand since Shri Saija was commuting between Gondal and Junagadh. This witness referred to several other incidences which according to him, took place on 02.09.1989, 07.10.1989 and 19.10.1989 when some or the other accused had threatened or had friction with the deceased. He referred to yet another incident of 07.07.1990 involving the accused Hardevsinh, Sahdevsinh (accused No. 1), Bhagirathsinh and Jayendrasinh for having threatened and having come in friction with Shri B.B. Vacchani, the Executive Engineer of GEB, about which, a police complaint was also filed. He deposed that the accused Hardevsinh, Bhagirathsinh and Jayendrasinh were office bearers of a union of the employees of GEB called Nutan Vij Kamdar Sangh. He deposed that the accused Hardevsinh, Bhagirathsinh and Jayendrasinh were office bearers of a union of the employees of GEB called Nutan Vij Kamdar Sangh. He deposed that these accused were posted at Rajkot. He mentioned about two more unions active in the GEB, one of them being Gujarat Electricity Board Engineers Association, of which, Shri Saija was the vice president. He referred to a diary maintained by Shri Saija, abstracts of which were produced before the Court, in which, a reference was made to the harassment by some of the accused. In the cross-examination, the defense brought out certain improvements in the deposition of this witness as compared to his police statement. However, the fundamental facts of the accused being active in the Union and having come in friction with the deceased, remained intact. 7. Babubhai Vachhani, PW-22, Exh. 97, was also posted as Executive Engineer, GEB at Gondal. When Shri Saija was transferred on 09.03.1990, the charge of Superintending Engineer was given to him. He referred to an incident of 07.07.1990. He had left Gondal by train for Rajkot after the office hours and got down at Bhaktinagar station at 6:50 in the evening. On the platform overbridge, he was confronted by accused Hardevsinh, Sahdevsinh (accused No. 1), Bhagirathsinh and Jayendrasinh and questioned about extension of probation period of an employee Shri Aashara. According to the witness, he was slapped a couple of times and pushed around. He was also threatened with dire consequences. Next day was a Sunday, therefore on Monday morning, he had consulted the other engineer friends at Gondal and lodged a police complaint which was produced at Exh. 98. 8. We may now refer to the medical evidence. Dr. Pravinchandra Popatlal, PW-6, Exh. 34, was the medical officer at G.K. General hospital, Bhuj. He had carried out the postmortem on the dead-body. He had recorded as many as 15 different stab wounds all over the body. He had also recorded corresponding internal injuries to various vital organs of the body. He deposed that such injuries could be caused by sharp edged weapons. In his opinion, the death was due to damage to the internal organs and excessive bleeding. 9. Dr. Bharat Dholakiya, PW-7, Exh. 37, had treated accused No. 2 Mahabatsinh on 09.08.1990. The accused was brought to him by the police at Government hospital, Rajkot. He deposed that such injuries could be caused by sharp edged weapons. In his opinion, the death was due to damage to the internal organs and excessive bleeding. 9. Dr. Bharat Dholakiya, PW-7, Exh. 37, had treated accused No. 2 Mahabatsinh on 09.08.1990. The accused was brought to him by the police at Government hospital, Rajkot. He had recorded six different injuries on this person, in the injury certificate Exh. 38, which were either bleeding or inflammations. In his opinion, such injuries could be caused if while assaulting a person with a knife, the person catches the knife from the blade portion. 10. Bhikhubhai Ranchhodbhai, PW-14, Exh. 54 was working at a petrol-pump on Gondal road, Rajkot. According to the prosecution, the accused No. 1 and 2 had filled up diesel at this petrol-pump on 07.08.1990 in an ambassador car which was used for the commission of the offence. However, this witness turned hostile. 11. Lilavatiben Solanki, PW-16, Exh. 58 was working as peon in GEB office, Bhuj. She deposed that about four or five days before the murder of Shri Saija, when she was sitting on the bench at the office, at about 2:30 in the afternoon, one person had come there and had inquired about Shri Saija. She told him that he had gone out, upon which, this visitor inquired where Shri Saija lived. She was called for test identification parade by the Mamlatdar. She stated that she had shown one person saying that possibly he was the said visitor. She was told that his name was Mahobbatsingh (accused No. 2). In the cross-examination, she agreed that the police had conveyed to her to remain present before the Mamlatdar. She had told to Shri Katara, the Mamlatdar, that the person identified could possibly be the visitor. She agreed that she had first gone to the police station where the police had showed her the Mamlatdar's office. At that time, the person she identified in the identification parade was present at the police station. She agreed that even the police had asked her whether he was the same person and she had said that possibly it was so. She agreed that in the identification room, first of all, the Mamlatdar had pointed at one person and asked whether he was the same person and she had stated that he was similar. 12. Murli Pathak, PW-17, Exh. She agreed that in the identification room, first of all, the Mamlatdar had pointed at one person and asked whether he was the same person and she had stated that he was similar. 12. Murli Pathak, PW-17, Exh. 59, had a food stall and a pan shop at Mirzapur village, in the outskirts of Bhuj. He was also called for test identification parade. However, he did not support the prosecution during his deposition before the Court. For some unknown reason, he was not declared hostile. In any case, if the attempt of the prosecution was to establish the movements of the accused through this witness, it had not succeeded. 13. Rohtashsinh Arjunsinh, PW-20, Exh. 91, was the head constable, and at the relevant time was posted at Aadhoi police station. He was assigned duty at Surajbari check-post. According to him, his duty hours were from 8 to 12 in the morning and from 8 at night till 8 in the morning. He alongwith the other police constable, posted there would check any suspicious vehicles. At 10'O clock, at the check-post, one car with registration No. GCI-9366 had come there. They had stopped the car. There were two persons in the car, one of them was injured and bleeding. He had inquired about the injury and was told that while repairing the car, accidentally, he had got the injury. When these people told him that they were employees of GEB, he allowed them to go. He made an entry in the check-post register which was produced at Exh. 93. Ten minutes after this incident, he received a message from Aadhoi police station that if any person with injury is found, he should be detained. In the cross-examination, he agreed that in the entry pertaining to this car, there was overwriting of the number. When he received the log message at 22:08, he did realize the seriousness of the message. Even after receiving such message, he had not relayed any message to Bhuj about the injured person having passed the check-post. He agreed that the register did not contain details of the time when the vehicle may have passed. His statement was recorded by the police on 13.08.1990. 14. Hasam Alimamad, PW-24, Exh. 104 was employed as a 'pagi' in the police department at Bhuj. He agreed that the register did not contain details of the time when the vehicle may have passed. His statement was recorded by the police on 13.08.1990. 14. Hasam Alimamad, PW-24, Exh. 104 was employed as a 'pagi' in the police department at Bhuj. His principal job would be to identify the footmarks and follow the person who may have been involved in commission of crime. He would assist the investigating agency in solving cases through such means. He deposed that he was called at the GEB colony at about 10'O clock at night on 08.08.1990. From the spot, he had got the trail of two people. One of them was bare foot, another was wearing shoes. He had followed the trail of these footprints till such footprints were visible till a distance, after which he could see the wheel mark of the vehicle which appeared to be of an ambassador car. He believed that the accused had escaped in such ambassador car. 15. The accused No. 1 and accused No. 2 were arrested on 09.08.1990 under arrest panchnama Exh. 108. Though the panch witness Bharatkumar PW-11 turned hostile, he admitted his signature on panchnama. As per this panchnama, the two accused were arrested from the ambassador car with registration No. GCI-9366. Accused No. 2 had injuries. His clothes had blood stains. From the car also, blood stains were found. 16. We may also refer to two more panchnamas. Panchnama Exh. 113 is in the nature of a discovery panchnama. Here also though the panch witness turned hostile, he had admitted his signature and the Investigating Officer also referred to the proceedings of this discovery. As per the panchnama, accused No. 1-Hardevsinh was in the police custody and he conveyed to the panchas that he wanted to reveal an important fact having relation to the offence. Thereupon the panch witnesses, the police party and the said accused proceeded in the police vehicle and came to a place called Visham hotel. The accused led the panchas to a godown of one Varia and company. The owner of the godown was asked to open the shutter of the godown. Behind the godown, there was a 10 feet deep gutter. Everyone therefore with the help of a ladder, got into the gutter from where, one canvass shoe of left foot of size 7" was taken out. The shoe had blood stains. The owner of the godown was asked to open the shutter of the godown. Behind the godown, there was a 10 feet deep gutter. Everyone therefore with the help of a ladder, got into the gutter from where, one canvass shoe of left foot of size 7" was taken out. The shoe had blood stains. The bottom of the shoe had circular design. A little distance away from this place, the accused brought out another shoe from under bushes. The shoe was of size 9". It also had blood stains. A little distance further, the accused took out a plastic bag from shrubs from where clothes were found which also had blood stains. The accused walked further and from the gutter, took out yet another plastic bag which also contained blood stained clothes, which according to him was of Mahabatsinh-accused No. 2. 17. Under panchnama Exh. 123, the investigating agency had collected three knives stated to have been produced by accused No. 3. Two of these knives were allegedly used by accused No. 1 and accused No. 2 and the third was carried by accused No. 3, but not used. Shri Ambalal Prajapati, PW-19, Exh. 61 was the senior Scientific Officer, Ahmedabad, who had carried out the exercise of comparing the two shoes recovered under Panchnama Exh. 113 with the prints on the carpet in the house of Shri Saija. He explained the detailed steps he had taken for comparison. He produced his report at Exh. 64, in which, he had opined that the prints having ridges on the samples of the carpet P, P1 and P2 were those of the shoe marked as 'N' i.e. the shoe of size 7" and the prints with irregular design on the carpet specimen P and P1 were those of the shoe marked 'N1' i.e. the shoe of size 9". 18. The serological report showed that the deceased had blood group-B. The accused No. 1 had blood group 'AB' and accused No. 2 had blood group-'O'. Blood of group-B was found not only from the scene of the incident, but also from the floor of the ambassador car, the two shoes recovered under panchnama Exh. 123 and the clothes worn by the accused which were also recovered under the same panchnama. 19. This, in the nutshell, is the relevant evidence on record. Blood of group-B was found not only from the scene of the incident, but also from the floor of the ambassador car, the two shoes recovered under panchnama Exh. 123 and the clothes worn by the accused which were also recovered under the same panchnama. 19. This, in the nutshell, is the relevant evidence on record. We have not referred to the detail deposition of the three different investigating officers or of Shri Jayantkumar Patel, Executive Magistrate who had conducted the test identification parade since we would prefer to refer to the substantive evidence by the concerned witnesses while we assess the evidence on record. 20. The case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence. For proper consideration, we may separate different circumstances, which the prosecution would press in service to contend that they formed a complete chain pointing to the involvement to the accused in commission of the crime. These circumstances would be; "A. The uneasy relations between the accused and the deceased due to the union activities and the violent and aggressive nature of the accused. B. Movements of the accused immediately before after the incident. C. Footprints on the carpet at the scene of incident which according to the prosecution matched the shoes of the two accused. D. Arrest of the accused from the ambassador car which was allegedly used for commission of the offence. The injuries sustained by accused No. 2; his being found in such condition at the time of his arrest. E. The presence of blood of group 'B' from the two knives, the clothes of the deceased, their shoes and from the floor of the ambassador car." 21. We may discuss the evidence in the context of these circumstances. Insofar as the past relation between the two accused and the deceased is concerned, and their aggressive posturing, we have no doubt in our minds. It is an admitted position that the accused were the employees of GEB, where Shri Saija, the deceased, was working as Superintending Engineer. According to various witnesses, when Shri Saija was posted at Gondal, these accused who were active in their Union, had come in friction with him on number of occasions. The accused No. 1 in particular had confronted and threatened the deceased. The deceased therefore sometimes had to be escorted to the bus-stop by his colleagues. He had also lodged an official complaint. The accused No. 1 in particular had confronted and threatened the deceased. The deceased therefore sometimes had to be escorted to the bus-stop by his colleagues. He had also lodged an official complaint. The GEB officers have also referred to similar threats being given by the accused to other officers. We have referred to the said evidence while recording the gist of deposition of these witnesses and it is therefore not necessary to duplicate this. No major contradictions or improvements have been brought on record during the cross-examination of these witnesses. We may safely conclude that there was undoubtedly some ill-will and some animosity between the deceased and the present accused. To the extent possible, for the motive for commission of crime, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the same. However, motive by itself cannot substitute for reliable evidence that the offence was, in fact, committed by the concerned accused. We may therefore refer to the remaining factors and evidence relating to these factors in order to ascertain whether there is sufficient evidence to convict the accused. 22. Insofar as the movements of these accused shortly before or immediately after the incident is concerned, the evidence, if at all, is very patchy. Firstly, though the incident occurred between 5 and 8:30 in the evening, not a single witness referred to either the entry or exit of these accused. We may recall, the incident took place in the GEB colony where Shri Saija lived. The colony had two gates, one from the office side and the other at the rear side. The office gate was always guarded. The rear gate would have a watchman posted only at night after 10'O clock. The main gate for the vehicles was closed. The pedestrians would enter through a small side gate. It is unfortunate that even under such circumstances, the prosecution could not gather any evidence of the accused entering or exiting the colony during the evening hours. 23. The petrol-pump employee Bhikhu Ranchhod, PW-14 had turned hostile. We therefore do not have reliable evidence to believe that these two accused on 07.08.1990 had filled up diesel in the ambassador car with registration No. GCI-9366. Deposition of Lilavatiben Solanki, PW-16, Exh. 58 would also be of no use to the prosecution. 23. The petrol-pump employee Bhikhu Ranchhod, PW-14 had turned hostile. We therefore do not have reliable evidence to believe that these two accused on 07.08.1990 had filled up diesel in the ambassador car with registration No. GCI-9366. Deposition of Lilavatiben Solanki, PW-16, Exh. 58 would also be of no use to the prosecution. She did refer to a person visiting the GEB office at Bhuj in the afternoon some four or five days before the date of incident inquiring with her about Shri Saija. She told this visitor that Shri Saija was not in the office, upon which, the person inquired about his residence. Had this witness connected the visitor with either of the two accused, the prosecution could perhaps have gained some leverage out of her deposition. This witness however was not able to identify the accused confidently either before the Mamlatdar or before the Court. In fact, she did not identify the accused before the Court at all. Her attempt to identify the accused during test identification parade therefore becomes completely insignificant. In fact, her identification before the Executive Magistrate was also completely ineffective. To begin with, before the Magistrate, she pointed at a person who was likely to be same as the visitor. Thus, she was not confident about the identification. Further, she agreed that she had before the identification parade gone to the police station where a person was kept present and the police had asked her whether he was the same person as the visitor. This completely destroyed the sanctity of the identification parade. According to her, even the Mamlatdar instead of allowing her to identify the person from the lined up people, had showed the accused and asked her whether he was the same person. 24. Murli Pathak, PW-17, Exh. 59, had a pan stall in the outskirts of Bhuj. He also did not effectively support the prosecution. If the attempt on the part of the prosecution was to show that the accused were seen at Bhuj around the time of incident, through this witness, such attempt has failed. 25. Last of the witnesses in this context is Rohitashsinh, PW-20, Exh. 91. He as a head constable, was posted at Surajbari check-post. His duty was to check suspicious vehicles. According to him, the two accused had passed from this check-post at about 10'O clock in the evening at 08.08.1990. 25. Last of the witnesses in this context is Rohitashsinh, PW-20, Exh. 91. He as a head constable, was posted at Surajbari check-post. His duty was to check suspicious vehicles. According to him, the two accused had passed from this check-post at about 10'O clock in the evening at 08.08.1990. He and his constable had stopped the vehicle. There were two passengers in the car, one of the passengers had received injuries and was bleeding. He had questioned them about the injuries before allowing the car to pass. An entry was made in the register which was produced at Exh. 93. 26. For several reasons, evidence of this witness cannot help the prosecution. First and foremost, this witness did not identify the two accused before the Court as those whom he found in the ambassador car in the night of 8th August. Secondly, the evidence of this witness does not inspire confidence. We have perused the register Exh. 93. The register does not contain column for indicating time for stopping the vehicle. In fact, the register is a make shift book, containing format of entirely unrelated details which has been converted into the check-post register. Even the manner of recording entries of different passing vehicles, changes from time to time depending on the person making the entries. This register does contain an entry pertaining to a car with registration No. GCI-9366 and refers to two passengers in the car. There are no further details mentioned in this register. A perusal of the register would show that majority of the entries pertained to goods vehicles, only in exceptional circumstances, entries related to any passenger car were made. What was the need for stopping a particular ambassador car on the night of 08.08.1990, was not explained. More importantly, even though according to the witness, he was conveyed through log message at 10:08 that if a person in an injured condition is spotted, he should be immediately detained, he did not relay to the Bhuj police station that only minutes earlier, he had stopped a car which contained a person of such description. As a policeman, he should have immediately realized that prompt relay back of such information could be extremely crucial since the vehicle could immediately be stopped at the next junction or check-post. The fact that he did not do so raises grave doubt about the genuineness of this entry. As a policeman, he should have immediately realized that prompt relay back of such information could be extremely crucial since the vehicle could immediately be stopped at the next junction or check-post. The fact that he did not do so raises grave doubt about the genuineness of this entry. This coupled with the overwriting and correction of the registration number of the vehicle and the fact that the statement of this witness was recorded good five days after the incident, would persuade us to discard this factor. 27. The prosecution thus completely failed to establish the movement of these accused at the house of Shri Saija in the close proximity of the incident. 28. Insofar as matching of the prints on the carpet of the house of Shri Saija with the two shoes recovered under panchnama Exh. 113, we have no doubt. This was so established by the evidence of Shri Ambalal Prajapati, PW-19, Exh. 64. He had undertaken detailed exercise for verification which he explained before the Court and produced supporting documents. The conclusion of such analysis was that a bunch of footprints on the carpet were those of the shoe of size 7" and the remaining prints were made by the shoe of size 9", both of which were recovered under panchnama Exh. 113. To this aspect of the mater, we have no confusion. In the cross-examination, the defense has not been able to bring out any material factors to doubt or dispute the analysis of this expert. 29. This would undoubtedly be a very relevant factor and the factor strongly in favour of the prosecution if it could be established that these two shoes belonged to the accused No. 1 and accused No. 2 respectively, which they had worn on the night of the incident. It is in this context that the panchnama Exh. 123 becomes relevant. 30. We may recall, this panchnama is referred to as a discovery panchnama and supposedly the statement which led to such discoveries, was made by the accused No. 1. We may recall, as per this panchnama, the accused No. 1 led the police party and the panch witnesses to a godown. 123 becomes relevant. 30. We may recall, this panchnama is referred to as a discovery panchnama and supposedly the statement which led to such discoveries, was made by the accused No. 1. We may recall, as per this panchnama, the accused No. 1 led the police party and the panch witnesses to a godown. After opening the shutter and entering the godown, two separate shoes, both of left foot and two plastic bags containing clothes, supposed to be belonging to accused No. 1 and accused No. 2 were found from the gutter and bushes. The statement of accused No. 1 in this context which led to the said discoveries, would therefore be of great importance. 10.02.2017 31. The panchnama records that Sahdevsingh-accused No. 1 was present at the DCB office, Rajkot. He was in police custody. He had stated that he wants to reveal an important fact connected with the crime and that is how the accused, the panch witnesses and the police party left the DCB office and proceeded in a police vehicle as guided by the accused. 32. As is well known, under section 25 of the Evidence Act, 1872, no confession made to a police officer is admissible in evidence. Likewise, under section 26 of the Act, a confession made by a person while he is in the custody of a police officer is also not admissible in evidence unless the same is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. Section 27 of the Evidence Act is in the nature of an exception to the limitations provided under sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. Section 27 begins with the expression "Provided that" and provides that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved. Under section 27 of the Evidence Act thus a statement by an accused even while in custody of police would be relevant even if it amounts to a confessional statement, as long as the requirements of section 27 are satisfied. Under section 27 of the Evidence Act thus a statement by an accused even while in custody of police would be relevant even if it amounts to a confessional statement, as long as the requirements of section 27 are satisfied. Under section 27 what thus becomes relevant or admissible is the information received from the accused when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of such information received from him. The section is founded on the principle that if the disclosure of the accused is supported by discovery of a fact, the Court would have greater confidence in accepting the truthfulness of such a statement. This provision could be activated when certain facts are deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from accused in police custody and if the information relates distinctly to the fact discovered. Under sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act all confessions are made inadmissible in evidence which are made either to a police officer or while the accused is in the custody of the police officer unless it is made in the immediate presence of the Magistrate. The rigors of sections 25 and 26 are however, made inapplicable in a case falling under section 27 when certain facts are deposed as discovered in consequence of information received from an accused and if the information relates distinctly to the facts discovered. Under this section therefore there must be information supplied by the accused. The information so supplied may amount to a confession or not. In consequence of the information, a fact must be deposed as to discovered and in such a case, so much of the information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, would be admissible. An important condition to bring the section into operation therefore is discovery of a fact in consequence of the information received from a person accused of an offence. 33. With this background, if one reads the entire panchnama Exh. 113, the same nowhere refers to any disclosure of information by the accused relating to the offence, in connection with which the discovery was made. The accused merely stated before the panch witnesses and the police that he wishes to state something about the incident. He did not state such fact or provide any information which related to the offence. 113, the same nowhere refers to any disclosure of information by the accused relating to the offence, in connection with which the discovery was made. The accused merely stated before the panch witnesses and the police that he wishes to state something about the incident. He did not state such fact or provide any information which related to the offence. Mere fact that this accused then led the police and the panchas to a place where certain articles were hidden, which were recovered, would not make any statement of the accused admissible in evidence under section 27 of the Evidence Act. Had the accused stated before the police at the outset that he had hidden the shoes worn by him and the weapon used for the commission of the offence which he was willing to show and eventually such articles were found, the matter would rest on a different footing altogether. In the present case, the reading of the entire panchnama would show that there was no statement made by the accused which can be termed as disclosure of a fact or providing information in consequence of which the discoveries were made. 34. There is yet another reason why we must discard this discovery panchnama. As correctly pointed out by learned advocate Shri Anandjiwala for the accused, the godown from which the entry led to the gutter and the bushes, from where the articles were found, was locked. The police had to summon the owner who unlocked the godown and opened the shutter. There was no explanation how the accused had access to this godown without the aid of the owner thereof. 35. It is undoubtedly true that the two accused were arrested while they were in the ambassador car. Accused No. 2 was found carrying injuries. It is also true that various articles recovered by the investigating agency showed the presence of blood of group-B, that of deceased. Such articles were the shoes and the clothes of the deceased recovered under panchnama Exh. 113, the two knives recovered at the instance of accused No. 3 and the matting on the floor of the ambassador car. These facts undoubtedly would be relevant and important. However, by themselves, stand alone, they do not provide a complete chain of circumstances leading unerringly to the sole conclusion of the involvement of the accused in the commission of crime. These facts undoubtedly would be relevant and important. However, by themselves, stand alone, they do not provide a complete chain of circumstances leading unerringly to the sole conclusion of the involvement of the accused in the commission of crime. Had other factors and circumstances been successfully established by the prosecution, these two circumstances would have become relevant. When however we have discarded all the remaining circumstances from consideration, these two factors themselves, in no way could be stated to have formed a complete chain of circumstances. It is well settled that in a case resting solely on circumstantial evidence, proved circumstances must form a complete chain which would lead only to one conclusion viz. to the involvement of the accused in commission of the offence, to the exclusion of any other possibility. 36. Additionally, we must remind ourselves that the present is an appeal against acquittal. The presumption of innocence of the accused gets reinforced when he is acquitted by the trial Court. Even if two views are possible, the appellate Court would not reverse the finding of acquittal by the Trial Court merely because another view could be taken. We do not find that the judgment of the trial Court suffers from any perversity in appreciation of the evidence. 37. Criminal appeal is therefore dismissed.