The Public Prosecutor vs Garla Radhakrishnayya

Kuppuswami Aiyar, J.—This is an appeal by the Crown against the acquittal of the accused in C.C. No. 364 of 1942 on the file of the

Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Madanapalle. The accused was charged for an offence punishable u/s 380, Indian Penal Code, the prosecution case

being that he committed theft of two silver plates worth Rs. 65 belonging to one Venkatanarayana Chetti by taking them out of his possession from

his dwelling house. A number of witnesses were examined and the defence also examined some witnesses. The main evidence relied on by the

prosecution was a confessional statement made by the accused which led to the discovery of one of the alleged stolen articles. In paragraph 12 of

his judgment the Magistrate stated that it was not put in evidence as it was not admissible. The document that was sought to be tendered in

evidence was a confession recorded by the police and attested by the persons who were present there then. The Magistrate observed that such a

record ""was not satisfying the provisions of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, and was hit by Section 162, Criminal Procedure Code."" I am

not able to see how such a record of a confession made by the accused, merely because it is attested by persons who were present there, would

not be satisfying the provisions of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. As a matter of fact such a confessional statement is one of the exceptions

to the statements to which Section 162, Criminal Procedure Code, relates. The Magistrate has also observed that the statement was vitiated by

Section 24 of the Evidence Act, and he relied for this on the testimony of P.W. 7. I have read the deposition of P.W. 7 and I find nothing in it to

indicate that the confession was made as a result of inducement. All that was stated was that before the witness went the Police Inspector was

examining the accused and he was asking the accused to admit. But nothing was stated that if he admitted he could have any benefit. In these

circumstances, I do not think the Magistrate was justified in shutting out that evidence. I do not think it necessary to discuss the other evidence and

I do not express any opinion with regard to the same. Such a confession will be a very strong piece of evidence and when that has been shut out I

think it desirable that the case should be sent back to the lower Court for giving an opportunity to the prosecution to prove the confession and also

for the marking of the document to the extent to which it is admissible and proceeding with the trial in the light of the further evidence afforded by

such confession.

The order of acquittal is therefore set aside and the case is remanded to the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Madanapalle for being proceeded

with in the light of the observations made above.