Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Statements by several accused. Where the statements leading to discovery have been made by several accused, the mere fact of the statement of any particular accused appearing in the case diary before others is no guarantee that the statements were made in that order. The fact is to be made out independently of it. Though individual statements had been recorded from each of the accused they were all of the same pattern and referred to the same articles, and all of them declared that if the Inspector accompanied them, they would point out the place at which the articles were hidden: Held, that these statements but constituted one composite statement about the same articles, which did not serve to fasten the individual guilt, as there was no knowing on whose information the material fact was discovered. There is nothing in Section 27 to show, beyond what the words 'a person' may themselves mean, that the Legislature intended to depart from the general rule laid down in Section 13 of the General Clauses Act. The presence of the word 'a person' in singular therefore can not mean that the information should be by a single individual only. Thus Section 27 on its plain language does not exclude the interpretation as no plurality of information received from persons accused of any offence. It is easily conceivable that two or more persons simultaneously or jointly furnish an information and as a result of that informa- tion a common discovery is made; such a case will, if other conditions are satisfied be covered by the section. The underlying principle seems to be that the information is such information as cannot be said to be already in the possession of the police and that the discovery is made in consequence of that information and further that discovery is not re- discovery of something already discovered. The very language of Section 27 contemplates statement by an individual accused, and the discovery which may follow such statement. A joint statement of several accused or joint re- covery of articles by several accused persons is not contemplated.~ joint statement followed by joint recovery is not admissible against either of the accused.