Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Simultaneous information by several persons. What guarantees the truthfulness of the information is not the fact whether the information was given by one accused person or by several accused persons either simultaneously or otherwise but it is the actual discovery in consequence of the information that affords some guarantee about the truth of the information. Even in the case of simultaneous information given by several accused persons the information given by one of the accused would be admissible, if he followed it up by conducting the police to the actual spot where the 'fact' what actually discovered. If an accused merely points out a place where the articles are hidden and produces those articles therefrom, there are several possibilities; one possibility is that he had knowledge of the exact spot where the articles were hidden, as he himself was the author of concealment. The second possibility is that he may have gathered that information from a person who was the author of concealment. Another possibility that can be envisaged that he may have actually seen a person concealing those articles. His seeing a thief concealing those articles may not be objected to by that thief, as a thief might happen to be his friend or relation. It cannot necessarily be deduced from these circumstances only that he must necessarily be a thief. His knowledge without he being a thief from other sources cannot be necessarily rules out. The mere pointing out of the place where articles are hidden is not sufficient.