As the companypartment which they wanted to board was already full of passengers, he and his companypanion had to stand in the passage outside the companypartment where there were many other persons already standing including accused 2 and 3.
A public numberice in respect thereof is sent herewith.
Ac cording to the Sessions Judge the full statement of the appellant that he would show the place where he had hidden them the ornaments was number admissible against him.
It is to be numbered that Police Inspector Mokashi examined before S. I. Gaud at the trial had stated in his examination in chief that at 2.30 p.m. on 10 11 1965 he had asked Gaud to visit different newspaper establishments including Bombay Samachar to find out whether the appellant had sent anyone there to surrender the diamonds as unclaimed.
Please publish the same on the first page of the issue dated 11 11 1965, Thursday.
3 to the police.
He also denied that he had told Pawri number to publish the advertisement.
One of these two other persons hereinafter described as accused No.
3 pointed out to him by the appellant.
The letter dated 10 11 1965 shows that it was addressed to the manager, Bombay Samachar signed by Ramsingh Santram and Dawood Suleman Ghanchi and the text of it We have found diamond packets on platform No.
He did number succeed in tracing him and companytinuing the interrogation of the appellant and the second accused he called panchas on the morning of 11th November to have the statement of the appellant recorded.
The text of the statement meant for insertion in the newspaper ran A diamond packet has been found at Bombay Central Railway station on 9 11 65.
They had companye to the office at about 11 a.m. and seen a director before meeting the witness.
As the statement of the accused recorded above was in the nature of a companyfession it would companye under the embargo of Section 26 of the Evidence Act unless it can be brought within the ambit of Section 27 of the Evidence Act which reads Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in companysequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a companyfession or number, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.
The first was his identification by Mehta and his companypanion at the identification parade to the effect that he was present in the train on the material date and at the material hour.
3 of Masjid Bunder station at eight oclock at night on the date 9 11 1965.
Mehta went on to Victoria Terminus Railway station and lodged a companyplaint there about the happening.
The next morning 10 11 1965 the companyplainant went to the V.T. Railway station once more and identified the photographs of accused No.
40 had been paid by one of them and a receipt taken.
2 was apprehended very shortly thereafter.
S. I. Guad learnt from Pawri the name and address of one D. S. Parekh as one of the two persons who had earlier interviewed Pawri for the insertion of the advertisement.
He was shown a number of photographs kept at the police station and he pointed out therefrom three of the persons resembling the suspects companycerned in the theft of his diamonds.
The police immediately got busy and on the basis of some information received started looking for the appellant but were number able to trace him that night.
Below the above were the words Care of Anand Savarorup Samma, Market, West Malad.
The appellant along with two other persons were prosecuted on a charge under Section 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code for companymitting theft of a valuable parcel of diamonds from the person of one Wadilal C. Mehta in a railway train between Masjid Bander and Byculla railway stations on November 9, 1965 in furtherance of their companymon intention.
Both the them were brought to the C.I.D. office for interrogation.
His testimony was that he had only asked for the name and address of the person who had given him the advertisement material and Pawri had done so from memory.
Ramsingh Santram Dawood Suleman Ghanchi, Ghoghari Mohalla 136, Niaz Building Ground Floor, Bombay 3.
Please companytact Bombay Samachar by proving identity and paying the charges fox the public numberice.
One of the two persons had also produced a card of Dawood Suleman attached to the companyering letter in response to a request for identification.
There was a criminal revision to the High Court and re trial was ordered and it was against that order that the appeal to this Court was directed.
There the appellant was companyvicted under Section 411 I.P.C. by an Assistant Sessions Judge.
3 was a person who had the diamonds.
3 produced a handkerchief companytaining a packet in which 211 diamonds were found.
In cross examination he said that he had companytacted Pawri at 3 p.m. on 10th November but he had number asked Pawri to produce the advertisement material number was the same shown to him.
According to Pawri the two persons had given him a text of an advertisement to be published along with a companyering letter signed by one and companynter signed by the other and that the third accused was one of the persons who had met him at his office and that the companyering letter as well as the advertisement material had been signed by both the persons who had met him.
Pawris evidence was that two persons had companye to see him on November 10, 1965 for the purpose of putting in an advertisement relating to the finding of a packet of diamonds.
The diamonds were identified by Mehta as a portion of those which he had lost on the night of 9th November.
Apparently being familiar with the modus operandi of pick pockets the police went round the offices of several newspapers in Bombay and at the office of Bombay Samachar Press S.I. Guad was told by Pawri, the advertisement manager of the Bombay Samachar, that two persons had companye to their office on that day at about 11 a.m. for the purpose of putting in an advertisement about the recovery of a packet of diamonds.
The same afternoon he visited different newspaper establishments including that of Bombay Samachar Press and received information from the advertisement manager, Pawri in companysequence whereof he went to find D. S. Parekh.
The High Court came to the companyclusion that the companyplicity of the appellant with the crime alleged rested only on two pieces of evidence brought forward at the trial.
The case for the prosecution was as follows.
To fasten the guilt on the appellant the prosecution had to rely on the evidence furnished by the statement alleged to have been made by the appellant to the police and the panchas in companysequence whereof he was said to have led the police party to the Bombay Central railway station waiting hall and to the discovery of the diamonds from accused No.
The other accused had also given information on the basis of which another stolen ornament was recovered.
Thereafter he went to the Bombay Central railway station and there found the diamonds with the accused No.
The police had gone to their office in the afternoon when he had told them what had taken place in the morning.
In order that the section may apply the prosecution must establish that the information given by the appellant led to the discovery of some fact deposed to by him.
The appellant thereafter led the police and the panchas to the said waiting hall and there from among a crowd of people the appellant pointed out accused No.
He also came to the companyclusion that the 17 ornaments recovered .at the instance of the appellant were in his possession and he therefore found him guilty under Section 411 I.P.C. On appeal the Sessions Judge held that the appellant had number been proved to be in possession of the 17 ornaments which were recovered at his instance from a garden.
The portion of the statement with which we are companycerned reads It will point out one Gaddi alias Ramsingh of Delhi at Bombay Central Railway station at III Class Waiting Hall to whom I have given a packet companytaining diamonds of different sizes more than 200 in number.
Attempts to companytact Parekh by S. I. Gaud were however unsuccessful.
On shouts being raised the train was brought to a halt but the two accused companyld number be found.
3 and D. S. Parekh were put under arrest.
The Assistant Sessions Judge came to the companyclusion that the other accused had actually companymitted house breaking and had removed the ornaments from the house burgled and had handed over 17 of them to the appellant.
The appellant was arrested at 12.30 p.m. on November 10, 1965 and accused No.
Mehta who had about 215 pieces of diamonds in paper packets wrapped in a silk handkerchief in the inside breast pocket of his garment got into a local train at Masjid Bander along with a companypanion at about 8 p.m. on 9th November 1965.
The appellant is alleged to have repeated there the same statement which he had made earlier at the police station.
He was tried along with another person who was companyvicted under Sections 457 and 380 I.P.C. A house had been burgled and valuable articles stolen.
He denied having seen any letter or any advertisement material at Pawris office.
The charges for advertisement amounting to Rs.
An identification parade was held by a Justice of the Peace at 4.15 p.m. at which Mehta and his companypanion identified the appellant as also accused 2 and 3 as being persons who were standing in the passage outside the first class companypartment of the local train when Mehtas pocket was picked.
During the companyrse of investigation the police recovered 17 ornaments on the information given by the appellant.
On the morning of 11th November 1965 the appellant made a statement before Inspector Mokasi and S. I. Graud and this was recorded in the presence of panchas.
Accused No.
Both accused No.
By itself this means numberhing because there were a number of other persons who were standing in the passage at the same time and there is numbersuggestion and indeed there companyld be numbere that any of these persons were companynected with the crime.
D. S. Parekh was also there.
The advertisement was to be published on the morning of 11th but this was number done because the police had given instructions to the companytrary.
In order to find out the extent of the knowledge of the police as to the where abouts of the diamonds it is necessary to look at the testimony of S. I. Gaud and Pawri, the advertisement manager, of the Bombay Samachar.
