[2007] 1 MLRA Krishna Rao Gurumurthi & Anor v. PP & Another Appeal 703 detectives were excused from the attendance to enable them to continue with their interrogation of the accused at the Bilik Gerakan. He said Ramasamy had asked his permission for Inspector Bubagaran and the three of them to be excused from attending the meeting as they and Inspector Buba for the reason that they were conducting interrogation in a murder case, and that he had agreed. ASP Mohd Zaidon's evidence therefore confirms not only that interrogation of the first accused did take place but also that the three police detectives did interrogate him at the Bilik Gerakan.Secondly, I could find no such evidence that the police had already known of the existence of the body at the 292.4 km of the North-South Toll Highway and the jewellery at the tree at the Police Field Force area in Ulu Kinta, to support the contention that the body and the jewellery were recovered and not discovered and therefore could not qualify for admission under s. 27 . Inspector Bubagaran who arrived at the place with his police party under the guidance of the first accused said that when his party arrived, no other persons were there. His evidence was corroborated by the evidence of the other members of his party and by ASP Ravinder who arrived later with another police party after being informed by Insp Bubagaran by handphone that the body had been found. Further, the ASP as the investigation officer, had in the face of strenuous cross-examination creditably denied that the police had known of the existence of the body and the jewellery. Thirdly, the fact that there were some differences between the words used in the police report and the notes written down by the ASP were only to be expected. They were two different documents, the police report being merely to serve the purpose of verifying the fact that the accused had given the information in the form of the notes. There is no reason to suspect that that the notes relating to the discovery had been falsified as the accused himself had signed on the notes. [29] It is clear from the above quoted passage that the learned judge directed himself on both the issue of credibility and accuracy. He gave cogent reasons for accepting the evidence of the police officers that the discovery statements were in fact made. In concluding that the information given was accurately taken down by the officers concerned he took into account the discrepancies which have lay at the forefront of the attack by counsel before us. We find his direction on the s. 27 point to be impeccable. And we would respectfully add a further reason that supports the truth of the information provided by the second accused to PW14. It is this. The place where exh. P102 was found was used by the Field Force to dispose of hand grenades. As a former member of the Field Force there is a strong connection between him and the place chosen for the concealment of exh. P102 and thereby fortifies the evidence of PW14. [30] This is how the learned judge applied the section to the facts of this case: