- (1.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that burglary was committed in the house of P. W. I Lalchand. resident of village 6e District Ganganagar. during the night intervening August 16 and 17 1969. Lalchand was sleeping outside the main gate of his house during the night and when he got up in the morning at about 4. he to his surprise found the lock of his box broken. He also saw southern wall of his house broken. The following articles were missing from his receptacle: 1. One Karla (silver ). 2. One pair of Boozli Patti (gold ). 3. One pair of Paijeb (silver ). 4. Five gold coins (Mohars ). 5. Three rings (gold ). 6. One pair of Surlia Patti (gold ). 7. One nose pin (gold ). 8. Rs. 105/ -. in cash, and 9. Cloth of two designs (about 11 metres ). Of the above items. Nos. 1 and 2 belonged to his wife and Nos. 3 to 7 were owned by his daughter Mst. Vidya P. W. 2. On receipt of the first information report (Ex. P. 1 ). submitted by Lal Chand Sadar Police. Ganganagar. registered case under Sections 457 and 380. I. P. C. In the course of investigation, Gurnam Singh, who had been arrested in some other case, informed the police that he had given three articles viz. three gold Mohars. pair of 'karles' and 'paijeb' to Ami Chand Sunar of village Gidarwali. The information was reduced to writing and is marked Ex. P. 9. Gurnam Singh took the police to Ami Chand. On interrogation Ami Chand stated that he had sold the three items to certain Sunars of Abohar. Thereafter Ami Chand was also arrested by the police. The police recovered gold Mohars from the possession of Chami Ram. P. W. 3 under memo Ex. P. 4 at the instance of Ami Chand. It recovered 'karlas1 and 'paijeb' from the possession of P. W. 4 Devi Das under memo Ex. P. 5. After necessary investigation the police presented a challan against Gurnam Singh and Ami Chand to the Court of Munsiff-Magistrate. Ganganagar. Under Sections 457/380 and 411. I. P. C. respectively. Learned Munsiff-Magistrate framed charges against the accused under the aforesaid sections of the Indian Penal Code, to which they pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined eight witnesses. Both the accused in their statements recorded under Section 342. Cr P. C denied the prosecution allegations. They produced no evidence in their defence. The trial Court, by its judgment. dated 15th July, 1971. convicted Gurnam Singh under Section 380. I. P. C. and sentenced him to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ -. in default of payment of which to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months. Accused Ami Chand was convicted under Section 411. I. P. C. and sentenced to six month's rigorous imprisonment. Against that verdict Gurnam Singh filed an appeal in the Court of Sessions Judge, Ganganagar. but the same was dismissed on October 6. 1971. Hence this revision.
(2.) THE contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the only evidence against Gurnam Singh is the information which he is alleged to have given to the police regarding the availability of gold Mohars pair of 'karlas and Paijeb'. This information is marked Ex. P. 9. The articles have been recovered from the possession of Ghasi Ram. P. W. 3 and Devi Das. P. W. 4 on the information (Ex. P. 10) and at the instance of accused Ami Chand. The information contained in Ex. P, 9 alleged to have been given by Gurnam Singh has no direct bearing with the fact of the recovery of the stolen property and, therefore, it could not have been used in evidence against Gurnam Singh.
(3.) ALTHOUGH the interpretation or Section 27. Evidence Act. has now been held to allow the admissibility of such statement as "i will produce a knife concealed, in the roof of my house" on the authority of Kottaya v. Empror AIR 1947 PC 67 : 48 Cri LJ 533 as it leads to the discovery of the fact that a knife is concealed in the house of the informant to his knowledge and if the knife is proved to have been used in the commission of the offence, the fact discovered is relevant. But this doctrine has never been extended to include statements concerning the source from which an article recovered was obtained. No statement except the last leading to the actual discovery of property is admissible. If the police were allowed to prove that A stated that he handed over the property to B and B stated that he handed it on to C and C to D and D to E and recovery was made from E all of them being accused, there is no guarantee that any statement except the one made by E is true.;