Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
22nd October 1952
MAHAJAN, CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR AND BHAGWATI JJ.
Palvinder Kaur - Appellant
Versus
The State of Punjab (I) - Respondent; Rup Singh (Father of Jaspal Singh, deceased) - Caveator.
Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 1952.
Advocates appeared
Shri J. G. Sethi, Senior Advocate (Shri R. L. Kohli, Advocate, with him), instructed by Shri Sardar Bahadur Agent - for Appellant; Shri H. S. Gujral, Advocate, instructed by Shri P. A. Mehta, Agent - for Respondent; Shri Bhagat Singh Chawla, Advocate, instructed by Shri Harbans Singh, Agent - for Caveator.
Held: In order to establish the charge under S. 201, Penal Code it is essential to prove that an offence has been committed mere suspicion that It has been committed is not sufficient that the accused new or had reason to believe that such offence had been committed and with the requisite knowledge and with the intent to screen the offender from legal punishment causes the evidence thereof to disappear or gives false information respecting- such offences knowing of having reason to bereave the same to he false. It was essential in these circumstances for the-prosecution to establish affirmatively that the death of Jaspal was caused by the administration of potassium cyanide by some person (the - appellant- haying been acquitted of this charge) and that she had reason to believe that it-was So caused and with that know ledge she took part in the concealment and disposal of the dead body. That is no evidence whatsoever on this point. The following facts, that Jaspal died, that his body was found in a trunk and was discovered from a well and that the appellant took part in the disposal of the body do not establish the cause of his death or the manner and circumstances in which it came about. As already stated there is no direct evidence to prove that potassium cyanide was administered to him by any person. The best evidence of this question would have been that of doctor who performed the post-mortem examination. That evidence does not prove that Jaspal died as a result of administration of potassium cyanide
In view of the situation of the parties and belated investigation of the case and the sensation it created it was absolutely necessary for the courts below to safeguard themselves against the danger of basing there conclusions on suspicions howsoever strong. - Section 24-Confession-Mode of use-Exculpatory statements. Held: (1) A well-accepted rule regarding the use of confession and admission is that it must either be accepted as a whole or rejected as a whole and that the court is not competent to accept the in collator part while, rejecting the exculpatory part as inherently incredible.2
1 i.e., where the circumstances cast a suspicion on the genuineness of the confession.
2. Emperor v. Balmukand, 52 All. 1011 (F.B.) referred to.
(2) The word "confession" as used in the Evidence Act cannot be construed as meaning a statement by an accused suggesting the reference -that he committed the crime. A confession must either admit terms the offence or at any rate substantially all the facts which constitute the offence. An admission of a gravely incriminating fact, even a conclusively incriminating fact is not of itself a confession. A statement that contains -self-exculpatory matter cannot amount to a confession, if the exculpatory -statement is of same fact, which if true, would negative the offence alleged to be confessed.
Judgment
Mahajan J. Palvinder Kaur, was tried for offences under Ss. 302 and 201, Penal Code, in connection with the murder of her husband Jaspal Singh. She was convicted by the Sessions Judge under S. 302 and sentenced to transportation for life. No verdict was recorded regarding the charge under S. 201, Penal Code. On appeal to the High Court she was acquitted of the charge of murder, but was convicted under S. 201, Penal Code and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment. Her appeal by special leave is now before us.
2. Jaspal Singh, deceased, was the son of the Chief of Bhareli (Punjab). He was married to Palvinder Kaur a few years age and they had two children. The husband and wife were living together in Bhareli house, Ambala. It is said that Jaspal s relations with his father and grandfather, were not very cordial and the two elders thought that Palvinder Kaur was responsible for this. It is also said that Jaspal lived on the allowance he got from his father and supplemented his income by selling milk and eggs and by doing some odd jobs. Mohinderpal Singh (a fugitive from justice) who is related to the appellant and was employed as a storekeeper in Baldevnagar Camp, Ambala, used occasionally to reside in Bhareli house. It is suggested that he had started a liaison with Palvinder.
3. The prosecution case is that Sardar Jaspal was administered potassium cyanide poison by the appellant and Mohinderpal on the afternoon of 6-2-1950. The dead body was then put into a large trunk and kept in one of the rooms in the house in Ambala city. About ten days later, i. e., on 16-2-1950, Mohinderpal during the absence of the appellant, removed the trunk from the house in a jeep when he came there with Amrik Singh and Kartar Singh (P. Ws.), two watermen of the Baldevnagar Camp. The trunk was then taken to Baldevnagar Camp and was kept in a store room there. Three days later, on 19-2-1950, Mohinderpal accompanied by Palvinder and a domestic servant, Trilok Chand (P. W. 27), took the trunk a few miles on the road leading to Rajpura, got on to a katcha road and in the vicinity of village Chhat took the jeep to a well on a mound and threw the box into it. The jeep was taken to a gurdwara where it was washed.
4. After the disappearance of the deceased, his father made enquiries from Mohinderpal regarding the whereabouts of his missing son. Mohinderpal made various false statements to him. On 8-3-1950 the father advertised in the "Daily Milap" begging his son to return home as soon as possible as the condition of his wife and children and parents had become miserable owing to his absence.
5. On 10-3-1950 i. e., a month and ten days after the alleged murder and 19 days after the trunk was thrown into the well, obnoxious smell was coming out of the well, and the matter being reported to the lambardars of village Chhat, the trunk was taken out. The matter was reported to the police and Sardar Banta Singh, Sub-Inspector of Police, on the 11th March arrived at the scene and prepared the inquest report and sent for the doctor. The post-mortem examination was performed on the spot the next day. No photograph of the body was taken and it was allowed to be cremated. After more than two and a half months, on 28-4-1950, the first information report was lodged against the appellant and Mohinderpal and on the 26th June a challan was presented in the Court of the committing Magistrate. Mohinderpal was not traceable and the case was started against the appellant alone.
6. There is no direct evidence to establish that the appellant or Mohinderpal or both of them administered potassium cyanide to Jaspal and the evidence regarding the murder is purely circumstantial. The learned Sessions Judge took the view that the circumstantial evidence in the case was incompatible with the innocence of the accused, and held that the case against the appellant was proved beyond any reasonable doubt. The High Court on appeal arrived at a different conclusion. It held that t
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
