George Knox, J.
1. Read explanation furnished by the District Magistrate. It appears that in the course of a Police investigation into a charge under Section 328 of the Indian Penal Code, the prisoner Indrason pointed out a dhatura tree and said 'from this I took the fruit.' The fact of pointing out the dhatura tree and the words accompanying it were deposed to by the witness Ablakh. The same witness was allowed to say further: 'He (meaning the Sub-Inspector) asked Indrason who gave the gur and Indrason said he gave it. He also said I gave seed of dhatura.' The Darogha said 'where did you bring the seed.' He said 'there was a tree at Chillor Ahir's Kala.' The Darogha said 'come and point out.' All of us went.' There can be no doubt whatever that the whole of the statement above recited was inadmissible as evidence. No fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of the information said to be given by Indrason. If we take it that the fact of the dhatura tree was a discovery in consequence of the information received from Indrason, then and then only such information as related distinctly to the fact thereby discovered might be proved. The fact that Indrason pointed out the tree and said that from it he took the fruit is all that related to the fact thereby discovered. But, as pointed out by Mr. Justice West in Reg. v. Jora Hasji 11 B.H.C.R. 242 at pp. 244, 245: 'It is not all statements connected with the production or finding of property which are admissible; those only which lead immediately to the discovery of property, and so far as they do lead to such discovery, are properly admissible.... Other statements connected with the one thus made evidence, and so mediately, but not necessarily or directly, connected with the fact discovered, are not to be admitted, as this would rather be an evasion than a fulfillment of the law, which is designed to guard prisoners accused of offences against unfair practices on the part of the Police. For instance, a man says 'you will find a stick at such and such a place. I killed Rama with it.' A Policeman, in such a case, may be allowed to say he went to the place indicated, and found the stick; but any statement as to the confession of murder would be inadmissible.' By similar reasoning the evidence of Ram Gobind quoted by the learned Magistrate is equally inadmissible as evidence and should have been rigorously excluded. Let the record be returned.