Police custody discovery evidence admissible under Section 27; sentence relief for youthful offenders was not disturbed.

Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act applied where an accused in police custody gave information leading to discovery of a fact, even though the custody related to another offence; the discovery evidence was therefore admissible and the evidentiary objection failed. The court also held that there was no sufficient basis to interfere with the sentence or to grant relief under the youthful offender provision, as the Magistrate had already considered that discretion and no compelling reason for appellate intervention was shown. The conviction was sustained and the petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the discovery of the cycle pursuant to the accused's statement while in police custody rendered the statement admissible in evidence; (ii) Whether the sentence should be interfered with and relief considered under the provision for youthful offenders.

Issue (i): Whether the discovery of the cycle pursuant to the accused's statement while in police custody rendered the statement admissible in evidence

Analysis: Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 applies when a fact is discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence while in the custody of a police officer. The accused was in police custody and was already accused of an offence. The fact that he was then in custody in connection with a different offence did not prevent the operation of the section, because the discovery followed from the information given by him. Section 25 was treated as not assisting the petitioner's contention.

Conclusion: The statement was admissible and the discovery evidence was properly received.

Issue (ii): Whether the sentence should be interfered with and relief considered under the provision for youthful offenders

Analysis: The provision corresponding to Section 562 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 could have been applied, but the Magistrate had considered it and found such an order inappropriate. No sufficient ground was shown for appellate interference with that discretionary assessment of sentence.

Conclusion: The Court declined to interfere with the sentence or grant relief under the youthful offender provision.

Final Conclusion: The conviction was sustained, the evidentiary objection failed, and no interference was made with the sentence, resulting in dismissal of the petition.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an accused in police custody gives information leading to discovery of a fact, Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 applies even if the custody relates to another offence, and discretionary sentencing relief will not be disturbed absent compelling reason.

---