1. Murder of eight boys and dacoity — Convictions under Sections 302 and 395 of the Indian Penal Code. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
1963 Supreme(SC) 16
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K C. DAS GUPTA AND J. R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.
Nand Kumar and others, Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 181 of 1961.
Advocates appeared
Mr. O. C. Chatterjee, Mrs. Renu Chatterjee and Mr. S. N. Mukherjee, Advocates, for appellants; Mr. A. S. R. Chari, Senior Advocate (M/s. Kan Singh and P. D. Menon, Advocates with, him), for Respondent.
A retracted confession is safe for conviction if corroborated in material particulars by independent evidence. Delay in recording or solitary confinement does not inherently render a confession involuntary. Strong circumstantial evidence can be supplemented by co-accused statements to justify conviction.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 302 and 395 - Evidence Act - Section 27 - Retracted confessions - Corroboration - Courts ordinarily consider it unsafe to convict an accused on the basis of a retracted confession unless the truth of such confession is established by corroboration in material particulars by independent evidence - Where the prosecution produces reliable evidence independent of the confession and not tainted (such as evidence of an accomplice or co-accused) that establishes the truth of certain parts of the account which are so integrally connected with other parts that a prudent judge would believe the accused's statement regarding their own participation, such corroboration is sufficient. (Para 12)
(B) Voluntariness of confession - Delay in sending the accused to a Magistrate for recording confessions or the fact that the accused were kept in solitary cells is not a sufficient ground to conclude that the confessions were not voluntary. (Paras 9-11)
(C) Conviction based on circumstantial evidence - Where circumstantial evidence is almost sufficient to justify a conclusion that an accused took part in a crime in furtherance of a common intention, statements made against that accused in the retracted confessions of co-accused may be taken into consideration to provide further assurance for conviction. (Para 20)
Facts of the case:
Eight boys were robbed and murdered during a picnic. Five suspects were arrested. Three of the appellants made confessions, which they later retracted. Stolen valuables, including a camera, watches, and rings, as well as blood-stained clothing, were recovered from the houses of the accused. The location of the bodies and the murder weapon were discovered based on statements made by one of the accused. One appellant did not confess but was linked to the crime through circumstantial evidence and the confessions of others.
Findings of Court:
The court found the confessions to be voluntary and sufficiently corroborated by independent evidence. The recovery of stolen property and blood-stained clothes, along with the discovery of the crime scene, established the participation of the confessing appellants. The non-confessing appellant's involvement was proved through circumstantial evidence and corroborated by the co-accused's statements.
Issues: Whether the confessions were voluntary and admissible; whether the retracted confessions were sufficiently corroborated by independent evidence; and whether the non-confessing appellant could be convicted based on circumstantial evidence and co-accused statements.
Ratio Decidendi: A retracted confession is admissible and safe for conviction if corroborated in material particulars by independent, reliable evidence. Factors such as delay in recording or solitary confinement do not automatically invalidate the voluntariness of a confession. Circumstantial evidence, when strong, can be supplemented by the statements of co-accused to justify a conviction.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Admissibility and voluntariness of confessional statements — Sufficiency of corroboration for retracted confessions — Validity of recoveries. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 )
3. Confessions were voluntary despite delay and solitary confinement; retracted confessions are sustainable when corroborated by independent evidence in material particulars. (Para 7 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 )
4. Retracted confessions require corroboration in material particulars by independent, non-tainted evidence that integrally connects the accused's participation to the crime. (Para 12 )
5. Appeal dismissed — Convictions and sentences under Sections 302 and 395 of the Indian Penal Code confirmed. (Para 23 , 24 )
6. When is a conviction based on a retracted confession considered safe?
A conviction is safe when the truth of the retracted confession is established by corroboration in material particulars through reliable, independent evidence that is not tainted, such as evidence from an accomplice or co-accused, provided these parts are integrally connected to the accused's participation in the crime. (Para 12 )
7. Does keeping an accused in a solitary cell render a confession involuntary?
No, solitary confinement is often a prudent measure by jail authorities for the safety of the confessing accused and does not, by itself, indicate that a confession was involuntary. (Para 11 )
8. Can a non-confessing accused be convicted based on circumstantial evidence and the confessions of co-accused?
Yes, if circumstantial evidence is sufficient to justify a conclusion of participation in furtherance of a common intention, statements made in the confessions of co-accused can be taken into consideration to provide additional assurance for conviction. (Para 20 )
9. Is the establishment of motive essential for conviction when overwhelming evidence exists?
No, when evidence is clear and overwhelming to prove the commission of the crime, it is unnecessary to speculate about the motive that induced the accused to commit the act. (Para 21 )
Judgment:
DAS GUPTA, J: On June 4, 1960, eight boys, (1) Munna son of Manohar Lal; (2) Ram Prakash son of Ram Baboo; (3) Laxmi son of Vidya Ram; (4) Pooran son of Gulab Chand; (5) Kedar son of Ram Kumar; (6) Mohan son of Banke Lal; (7) Suresh son of Chandra Shekhar and (8) Jagdish son of Mitthan Lal, all of Dholpur City went to the temple of Mangal Bharti for a picnic. None of them returned home. On the morning of June 6, all these boys were found dead near a well in Gundaria forest. Each of the bodies bore numerous injuries, which according to the evidence of the doctor, who held the post mortem examination, caused the deaths. Seven of the bodies were found naked; only the dead body of Munna had clothes on. The hands of each were tied from behind with ribbons of their trousers and their mouths were found gagged. Watches and rings, bottons and currency notes, which some of these boys had with them had disappeared.
(2) The four appellants, viz., Nand Kumar, Brij Kishore alias Kalua, Lakhan and Murari along with one Jagdish were all convicted for the murder of these eight boys under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and were all sentenced to death. All of them were also convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge under S. 377 of the Indian Penal Code and S. 395, Indian Penal Code.
(3) The conviction of these four appellants under S. 302 was confirmed by the High Court of Rajasthan and the sentences of death passed on Nand Kumar, Kalua and Lakhan were also confirmed. The High Court reduced the sentence on Murari to one of imprisonment for life. The conviction of all the appellants under S. 395 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentencespassed thereunder were also confirmed. The present appeal is by special leave granted by this Court.
(4) The prosecution case is that when the eight boys were at Mangal Bharti temple on June 4, 1960, these four appellants and Jagdish joined them there. In the evening before they all left the temple, these appellants took Munna and his seven companions one by one into a narrow lane behind the temple and robbed them of their belongings and valuables by force. All the 13 then left the temple together but instead of returning to Dholpur City, the appellants took the boys to the Gundaria forest. It is said that before the appellants took the boys to Gundaria they had agreed among themselves to murder them. They all waited near a pillar till about 9-30 p.m. after which while Jagdish and Murari remained near the boys to keep watch over them-Jagdish being armed with a gun-first of all Munna was called away from the other boys and killed by the other three, viz., Nand Kumar, Kalua and Lakhan. The other seven were also taken away one by one and killed by these three. For these killings they used a knife which belonged to Murari and which Murari had brought with him on that day. After all the eight boys had been killed the booty was distributed among these five. Nand Kumar took in his share an Agfa camera which had been taken from Munna and also Munna s wrist watch; Lakhan got a wrist watch and a ring which had belonged to Ram Prakash; Kalua s share was a wrist watch belonging to Laxmi Chand and also a ring which belonged to him. Murari got four buttons and some money in cash and Jagdish also got some buttons and cash.
(5) The relatives of the boys had become anxious when the boys did not return on the night of June 4. Information was received from Puran, also of Dholpur City, who had also gone to the Mangal Bharti on that day that he had seen the eight boys and also Nand Kumar, Lakhan, Kalua, Jagdish and Murari together at the Mangal Bharti. Inquiries were then made at the houses of these five but they were all found absent. On the following morning, i.e., the 5th June, 1960, at 6 a.m., Shiv Narain, the brother of Munna lodged information with the Kotwali Police, Dholpur, about the disappearance of these boys. He added his suspicion that these boys might have fallen into the hands of dacoits belonging to the Panna da
