698 Krishna Rao Gurumurthi & Anor v. PP & Another Appeal [2007] 1 MLRA body of Balakrishnan had come from the police and not from the first accused. This submission goes to the question whether the discovery statement was made and since a similar point was taken by the second accused we will comment on these arguments at the appropriate place in his judgment. [16] The third attack on the discovery statement relates to the admission by the trial judge of the words "buang mayat" (threw the body) uttered by the first accused. It was submitted that those words ought not to have been admitted by the learned judge because of their unfavourable connotation which had the effect of inculpating him in the crime. According to counsel what should have been admitted is only the statement of the first accused agreeing to show where the body was since this was the information that distinctly led to the discovery. There is a short answer to this point. It is to be found in the case of San Soo Ha v. Public Prosecutor [1967] 1 MLRH 200 ; [1968] 1 MLJ 34. In that case, the accused was charged with housebreaking and theft of property. He gave a statement to a police officer to the effect that the stolen money was kept in his room. As a result of such information, the accused led a police party to his flat where the police recovered property proved to belong to the complainant. Objection was unsuccessfully taken before the President of the sessions court on the admissibility of the words "stolen money". The accused was convicted and appealed. In dismissing his appeal against conviction, Raja Azlan Shah J (as his Royal Highness then was) said this: On the legal position that arises in such circumstances there is a wealth of weighty Indian authorities. It is established law that such words as 'I have concealed,' 'I have hidden,' 'I have kept' are admissible in evidence as evidence as coming within the purview of section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act (see Rama v. State AIR [1952] Bom 299). Thus, in the present case if the words used are 'the money was kept in his room', they are admissible on the ground that those words distinctly and positively relate to the fact discovered and which is necessary to be proved in order adequately to explain such discovery. Does the inclusion of the word 'stolen' provoke section 27 of the Evidence Ordinance? Reference was made by counsel to the local case of Hashim & Anor v. Public Prosecutor [1954] 1 MLRA 545; [1956] MLJ 233 in which it was held that the words 'used in the murder' were not admissible. The facts in that case are different from present consideration although the principles are of general application. In the final analysis each case of this kind depends on the particular facts to which the general principle must be applied. In a Pepsu High Court case the statement of the accused that he had concealed the abducted woman Mt. Surjit Kaur in the house of Gobind Singh and that he could get her recovered from that place was allowed under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court did not accept the suggestion that the words 'abducted woman' connected that the woman had been abducted by the accused. They only meant 'an abducted woman' and that the accused did not say that he had abducted the woman in which case perhaps that portion would have been liable to be excluded from consideration. (See Vidya Prakash