Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
23rd September 1952
MAHAJAN, S.R. DAS AND BHAGWATI JJ.
Hanuman Govind, Nargundkar and another Appellant -
Versus
State of M.P. - Respondent.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 56 and 57 of 1951.
Advocates appeared
Shri N. C. Chatterjee , Senior Advocate (Shri B. Bannerjee and Shri A. K. Datt, Advocates, with him), instructed by Shri Ganpati Rai, Agent (in No. 56 of 51) and Shri Bakshi Tek Chand, Senior Advocate 344 (Shri K. V. Tembay, Advocate, with him),instructed by Shri Rajinder Narain, Agent (in No. 67 of 51) - for Appellants; Shri T. L. Shevde, Advocate-General of Madhya Pradesh (Shri T. P. Nath, Advocate with him), instructed by Shri P. A. Mehta, Agent - for Respondent.
Held: When the court of first instance and the court of appeal arrive at concurrent findings of fact after believing the evidence of a witness, the Supreme Court as the final court does not disturb such findings, save in most exceptional cases. But where a finding of fact is arrived at on the testimony of a witness who is admittedly an accomplice and the courts below depart from the rule of prudence that such testimony should not be accepted unless it is corroborated by some other evidence on the record, a finding of that character in the circumstances of a particular case may well be reviewed even on special leave if the other circumstances in the case require it, and substantial and grave injustice has resulted. - Section 367-Circumstantial evidence-Appreciation.
Held: In dealing with circumstantial evidence the rules specially applicable to such evidence must be borne in mind. In such cases there is always the danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof and therefore, it is right to recall the warning addressed by Baron Alderson to the Jury in Reg. v. Hodge, (1838) 2 Lewin 227) where he said:
" The mind was apt to take a pleasure in adapting circumstances to one another, and even in straining them a little, if need be, to force them to form parts of one connected whole; and the more ingenious the mind of the individual, the more likely was it, considering matters, to overreach and mislead itself, to supply some little link that is wanting, to take for granted some fact consistent with its previous theories and necessary to render them complete.”
It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. - Circumstantial evidence-Appreciation of-When sufficient for conviction. - Sections 18, 24-Admission of confession to be taken as a whole.
Held It is settled law that an admission made by a person whether amounting to a confession or not cannot be split up and part of it used against him. An admission must be used either as a whole or not at all. - Section 45.
Held: "It was argued that the letter was not typed on the office type writer that was in use in those days, viz. Art. B and it had been typed on the typewriter Art. A which did not reach Nagpur till the end of 1946. On this point evidence of certain experts was led. The High Court rightly held that opinions of such experts were not admissible under the Indian Evidene Act as they did not fall within the ambit of S. 45 of the Act." (per Chandrasekhara Aiyer J.)
Judgment
Mahajan J. - This is a consolidated appeal by special leave from the two orders of the High Court of Judicature at Nagpur passed on 9-3-1950 in Cri. Revns. Nos. 152 and 153 of 1949.
2. On a complaint filed by the Assistant Inspector-General of Police, Anti-Corruption Department, Nagpur, the appellant in Cri. Appeal No. 56 of 1951 (H. G. Nargundkar, Excise Commissioner, Madhya Pradesh), and the appellant in Cri. Appeal No. 57 of 1951 (R. S. Patel) were tried in the Court of Shri B. K. Chaudhri, Special Magistrate, Nagpur for the offence of conspiracy to secure the contract of Seoni Distillery from April 1947 to March 1951 by forging the tender, Ex. P.3A and for commission of the offences of forgery of the tender (Ex. P. 3A) and of another document, Ex. P-24. The learned Special Magistrate convicted both the appellants on all the three charges. He sentenced R. S. Patel to rigorous imprisonment for one year under each charge and to pay fines of Rs. 2,000, Rs. 2,000 and Rs. 1,000, under the first, second and third charges respectively. The appellant Nargundkar was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months under each charge and to pay fines of Rs. 2,000, Rs. 2,000 and Rs. 1,000, under the first, second, and third charges respectively. Each of the appellants appealed against their respective convictions and sentences to the Court of the Sessions Judge, Nagpur. The learned Sessions Judge quashed the conviction of both the appellants under the first charge of criminal conspiracy under S. 120-B; Penal Code, but maintained the conviction and sentences under S. 465, Penal Code on the charges of forging Ex. P-3 (A) and P-24. Both the appellants went up in revision against this decision to the High Court but without any success. An application was then made under Art. 136, Constitution of India for special leave to appeal and this was allowed by this Court on 24-3-1950.
3. The appellant, Nargundkar, is a member of the Central Provinces & Berar Provincial Service and held the substantive post of Deputy Commissioner for several years. In April 1946 he was appointed Excise Commissioner, Madhya Pradesh and continued to hold that office till 5-9-1947.
4. The appellant, R. S. Patel, is a Sugar Technologist and Chemical Engineer. He received his technical education and practical training in Americal and after working as Chief Chemist and General Manager in factories in Madras for five years, came to the Central Provinces in 1944, when the Provincial Government gave him a license to set up a distillery for the manufacture of industrial spirit.
5. On 11-9-1946, Nargundkar in his capacity as Excise Commissioner invited tenders for working the Government distillery at Seoni and supplying spirit to certain specified districts for a period of four years from 1-4-1947 to 31-3-1951. The last date for submitting the tenders was 31-10-1946. In response to this tender notice, five tenders were filed including those filed by (1) appellant, R. S. Patel, (2) K. B. Habibur Rahman, (3) Zakir-ur-Rahman, and (4) Edulji P. Doongaji (P. W. 4), in sealed covers with the Excise Commissioner on 31-10-1946 and he handed them over with the seals intact to the Office Superintendent, S. W. Gadgil (P. W. 13) for safe custody. Gadgil took them to his room and kept them under look and key in the office safe.
6. The case for the prosecution is that on 9-11-1946, accused Nargundkar took these sealed tenders home, that the tenders were opened by him at his house, that the rates of the tender (Ex. P-6) of E. J. Doongaji (P. W. 4) were divulged to accused 2 (R. S. Patel), who was allowed to substitute another tender (Ex. P-3A), containing rates lower than those of Doongaji, that thereafter these open tenders were brought to the office on 11-11-1946 and given to Amarnath (P. W. 20) who was the Assistant Commissioner of Excise, for submitting a report and that on the recommendation of Nargundkar the tender of accused 2 (Patel) was accepted and the contract was given
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
