700 Krishna Rao Gurumurthi & Anor v. PP & Another Appeal [2007] 1 MLRA [21] In English it reads: ... while I was interrogating an Indian man named Rajendran a/l Muthumanickam with the assistance of Insp Raguravan ... he wanted to say something about a place where the jewellery robbed by the three of them were hidden. [22] As a result of such information, a police party led by PW14 proceeded to the Ulu Kinta Field Force area. On arrival, PW14 saw a tree there. The second accused then pointed in the direction of the tree and said that he had hidden the jewellery at its base. PW30 (Sergeant Subramaniam) then dug at the tree base and found a canvas bag (exh. P102). It contained jewellery which PW26 later identified as having been stolen from the shop. [23] Learned counsel for the second accused also argued against admissibility of his client's discovery statement on the ground that it had been extracted by means of oppression. He submitted that the discovery statement formed part of the same transaction as cautioned statement that been ruled as inadmissible by the judge. He too relied on Goi Ching Ang (supra) in support of submission. We reject the submissions of learned counsel and would merely adopt what we have already said in relation to the identical point taken by counsel for the first accused. For good measure we reproduce what the learned judge said on the issue which we find to be beyond criticism: In any case, I could not find any evidence of any form of oppression beyond that which was reasonably expected and required by the police to obtain information to find the killers of the four persons. Both the Inspector and the ASP had denied under cross-examination that the two accused were assaulted while they were being interrogated. It is true the interrogations were carried out by a team of officers over long hours, but I would not consider them oppressive as they were each interrogated only on one occasion - in the case of the first accused on 13 March 1998 from 4.10pm to 10.25pm and in the case of the second accused on 15 March 1998 from 2pm to 11pm. The objective of an interrogation is to find the doer of a criminal act and is very much a legitimate aspect of our criminal justice system. How else could the police obtain information from a suspect? [24] We now turn to the other point also taken by counsel for the first accused namely whether the discovery statements were made. Before we express our views upon the argument addressed to us it is best that we remind ourselves of the statutory provision we have before us. The way in which s. 27 of the Evidence Act should be approached has been fairly worked out in the many decided cases that have discussed it. There are so many that it is neither feasible nor desirable to discuss them all here. But the common thread that runs through all of them is clear enough. It is that the section - like so many other areas in the law of evidence -