Mockett, J.:— The 1st and 2nd accused were charged before the Sessions Judge of Kurnool under two sections of the Indian Penal Code, viz., (1) under s. 364, abduction with intent to murder, and (2) under s. 302 murder, the person concerned in each case being one Veeramma who, it will later be seen, was unquestionably murdered on October 13, 1935. The learned Sessions Judge has acquitted both the accused of murder and has convicted them both under s. 364, Indian Penal Code, has sentenced the 1st accused to transportation for life, and the 2nd accused to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years. The 1st accused has appealed against his conviction (Criminal Appeal No. 660 of 1936) and the Crown has appealed against the acquittal of the accused for murder (Criminal Appeal No. 615 of 1936). (Their Lordships after dealing with facts proceeded).
2. The result will be that the appeal of accused No. 1 will be dismissed; the appeal of the Crown with regard to accused No. 2 will be dismissed.
3. The appeal of the Crown with regard to accused No. 1 will be allowed. With regard to the sentence, we have naturally given this matter the most anxious consideration, because this is after all an appeal against an acquittal, and although there is no practice laid down, we should often be reluctant in an appeal against an acquittal to pass a sentence of death. In this case, however, we consider we should be failing in our duty if we did anything else. This was a particularly cruel murder, carefully planned and deliberately carried out, and we consider that the proper sentence for us to pass is that the 1st accused should be hanged by the neck till he is dead. With regard to the question of sentence on the 2nd accused, we consider that notice should go to the 2nd accused to show cause why her sentence should not be enhanced.
4. Before leaving this case, we desire to point out that the method of recording statements given under s. 27 followed in this case is most unfortunate, and this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 530 of 1936 has pointed out that statements made by an accused person which contain information provable in evidence under s. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, should be clearly and carefully recorded by the Police Officer, and they should be recorded in the first person, that is to stay, in the words used by the accused. They should not be paraphrased. Obviously if what a man says is to be used in evidence, his exact words should be used and not what a Policeman or any one else says he said. That is sufficient comment with regard to that aspect of it. When the Police have recorded the statement, it will in each case be for the trial Court to decide how much of the statement is admissible under s. 27, that is to say, how much of such information as relates distinctly to the fact discoverable may be proved. And in considering that the Court should bear in mind the fact, which seems to have entirely escaped the notice of many Sessions Judges in this Presidency recently, that is, that so much of such information whether it amounts to a confession or not may be proved, provided that it relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered. A decision of this Court in Periayakaruppan, In re (1), deals with this topic. It is pointed out there that under s. 27, the whole statement which leads to the discovery may be given in evidence and it was further held that, on no account should a statement be altered. See also Sogaimuthu Padayachi v. King-Emperor (2). We agree with the principles laid down in that case although we are not wholly able to follow how they were applied to the actual facts before the Court. The statement in that case sought to be admitted might well, we think, have been admitted in its entirety. Of course, it will be for the Court in each case to say how much of the statement leads to the discovery of the fact in each case. If it is necessary in order to make sense of the statement of the accused to set out any question put to him that should obviously be done. The present practice which frequently occurs of Police Officers going into the box and saying some such thing as this “the accused said he would show the aruval” or “the accused said he would show the body” or “the jewels” is wrong. Obviously those are no the words of the accused but a mangled and incomplete paraphrase. We hope that the Courts Will take notice of these observations.
5. Order accordingly.