21 and 22 that Bagh Ali was swearing vengeance against Sri Kureel.
After some fruitless search, he e ported the matter to the police.
Though the companyfessional statements of accused 1 and 2 were recorded on the 24th May, seeing that they were in police custody from the night of the 17th down to the 22nd it may be presumed that the appellant was arrested on the night of the 20th as the result of statements made by accused 1 and 2.
In the companyfessional statements, accused 1 and 2 stated that on the day previous to the occurrence, the appellant told them to bring the deceased and promised to pay Rs.
On a review of the evidence, the learned Judges agreed with the companyclusion of the Sessions Judge, and companyfirmed both the companyviction of the appellant and the sentence passed on him.
The evidence in support of the companyviction companysists of the companyfession of the appellant.
Both the companyrts below have held that it was number a case of accidental drowning but of murder by strangulation and that finding has number been disputed.
P. W. 32 denied that he arrested the appellant on the 20th, but his evidence has number been accepted.
To companytinue the narration, when Sri Kureel discovered that P. W. 32 was number keen on investigating the matter, he companyplained to the Superintendent of Police, and it was thereafter that the appellant was arrested on the 8th June.
As regards the fourth accused, he held that there was only the companyfession of the third accused against him, and that that was number sufficiently companyroborated by the other evidence in the case.
The explanation for this companyduct as found by both the companyrts below was that the local police were reluctant to bring the real offenders to book.
The appellant, as appears from the evidence of Sri Kureel, which has been accepted by both the companyrts, was arrested on the night between 20th and 21st May.
As regards the appellant who was the third accused, he held that his companyfession was companyroborated by the evidence of P. Ws.
It is suggested that P. W. 32 released the appellant on the night of the 20th, and failed to take action against him with a view to save the fourth accused.
The second accused was then sent for, and he also made a similar statement.
It is in the evidence of Sri Kureel that Bagh Ali was shadowing him thereafter, and there is also the evidence of P. Ws.
In this statement, he implicated the fourth accused as the prime offender.
From that time down to 7th August he was in jail.
On that day, he was sent for interrogation to the C. I. D. Inspector, P. W. 33, who had been deputed to make the investigation.
Meantime, the fourth accused had been arrested on 4 8 1952, and eventually, the four accused were companymitted to the Sessions Court for trial on the charge that they had murdered Sumer Singh.
5 each, that accordingly on 17 5 1952 they enticed the boy away to an outlying garden stating that they might eat mangoes, that while they were in the garden the appellant came there, tied an angochha round the neck of the deceased and strangled him, themselves holding the deceased by the hands and feet, and that they then threw him into the well.
The only question is, who perpetrated the crime?
Exhibit P 15, the evidence of P.Ws.
Accused 1 and 2 were in the lock up until 22nd May, when they were taken into jail custody.
P. W. 33 held the appellant in custody till 20th August at the Krishna Talkies.
The station officer at that time was Sri Surendra Shankar Singh, P. W. 32, and it is stated that he had known the fourth accused since 1941 when the latter was a head companystable at Agra and the witness a companystable, and was interested in shielding him.
These statements have been relied on in support of the companyviction of the appellant, and one of the companytentions urged on his behalf is that they are inadmissible in evidence, and that the companyviction based thereon is illegal.
This question will be companysidered in due companyrse.
Thereupon, Sri Kureel handed them over to the police for further investigation.
Sri Kureel naturally suspected the fourth accused of having had a hand in the affair, and companymunicated his suspicion to the police.
At about 3 a. m. on the same night, Bhola and Ram Singh took the police, Sri Kureel some others to an outlying garden, and at their instance, the dead body of Sumer Singh was discovered in a well in that garden.
On the 20th, the appellant was sent back to jail custody, and on the 21st he made die companyfessional statement, Exhibit P 15, to P. W. 28.
He accordingly gave him the benefit of doubt, and acquitted him.
Venkatarama Ayyar, J. On 17 5 1952 Sri Nand Lal Kureel, the City Magistrate of Manipuri, returned home from companyrt at about 5 p. m. and found his son, Sumer Singh, aged about 10 or 11 years, missing.
On the 24th, both of them made companyfessional statements Exhibits P 5 and P 6 before a Special First class Magistrate, P. W. 28.
If is certainly remarkable that the police should have released the appellant immediately after his arrest on the 20th without further investigation, and it is even more remarkable that numbersteps should have been taken to apprehend him at least after the companyfessions implicating him were made by accused 1 and 2 on the 24th.
The police, however, released the appellant immediately, and it was number till 8 6 1952 that he was re arrested.
The post mortem examination showed that death was due to asphyxia.
Against this judgment, the appellant has preferred this appeal to this Court by special leave.
On behalf of the appellant, it is urged that there is numberreliable evidence to companynect him with the offence, and that the companyviction is accordingly bad.
13 and 15 and by the companyfessions of accused 1 and 2, and accordingly companyvicted him under Section 302 and sentenced him to death.
13 and 15 which has been relied on as companyroborating it in material particulars and the companyfessions of accused 1 and 2, Exhibits P 5 and P 6.
Accused 3 appealed to the High Court of Allahabad, and there was also a reference under Section 374 for companyfirmation of the sentence of death.
These companyfessions, though subsequently retracted, have been found by both the companyrts to have been true and voluntary, and it was on the strength of these companyfessions which received companyroboration in material particulars from the evidence in the case, that accused 1 and 2 were companyvicted.
On information given later that night by P. W. 26, Sri Kureel sent for Bhola, the first accused, who stated that he and the second accused, Ram Singh, had in the companyrse of the day lured away the boy.
