SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1961 Supreme(SC) 406

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.K. DAS, K. SUBBA RAO AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.
Ram Singh, Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 89 of 1961, dated 19-12-1961.
Advocates appeared
Mr. S. K. Kapur, Advocate (amicus curiae), for Appellant; M/s. G. C,. Mathur and C. P. Lal, Advocates, for Respondent.

Advocates:
C.P.LAL, G.C.MATHUR, S.K.KAPOOR

An extra-judicial confession is admissible in evidence if it is supported by other evidence.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL LAW - MURDER - CONVICTION - EVIDENCE - EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION - ADMISSIBILITY - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - SUFFICIENCY.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted of murder by the Sessions Judge and the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence. The prosecution case was that the appellant caused injuries to the deceased with a sword at about midnight on the night between June 14-15, 1960, due to enmity. The appellant denied the allegation and alleged that he was falsely accused of the offence.

Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in rejecting the statement of Ujagar Singh about the appellant's confessing to him that he had murdered Sheo Sahai. The extra-judicial confession of the appellant to Ujagar Singh finds ample support from the facts that the appellant did purchase a sword a day before, that that very sword was found to be stained with human blood shortly after the murder and that that sword was handed over by the appellant himself to the Police Officer at the Police Station.

Issues: 1. Whether the High Court erred in rejecting the statement of Ujagar Singh about the appellant's confessing to him that he had murdered Sheo Sahai? 2. Whether the extra-judicial confession of the appellant to Ujagar Singh is admissible in evidence? 3. Whether the circumstantial evidence is sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court erred in rejecting the statement of Ujagar Singh about the appellant's confessing to him that he had murdered Sheo Sahai. 2. The extra-judicial confession of the appellant to Ujagar Singh is admissible in evidence as it is supported by other evidence, such as the purchase of the sword, the delivery of the sword to the police, and the appellant's motive to harm the deceased. 3. The circumstantial evidence is sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.

Judgement

RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J. : Ram Singh appeals, by special leave, against the order of the Allahabad High Court dismissing his appeal and confirming his conviction and sentence of death, under S. 302, I. P. C., by the Sessions Judge, Etawah.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that due to enmity, the appellant caused injuries to Sheo Sahai, who was sleeping in his cattle shed in village Bahadurpur Ghar, with a sword at about midnight on the night between June 14-15, l960. Sheo Sahai died of the injuries received. The appellant thereafter proceeded to the Canal Distributory at some distance from the village and had a bath there. Later on, he went to the Police Station, Ekdil, nine miles away, and lodged a report. He delivered the sword which has been found by the Serologist to be stained with human blood. The appellant was taken in custody and as a result of the investigation was sent up for tribal.

3. The appellant denied the allegation that he had caused the death of Sheo Sahai and alleged that he was falsely accused of the offence. He also denied the other allegations for the prosecution. He alleged that one Paley Singh informed him about the murder of Sheo Sahai and asked him to go to the Police Station, Ekdil, and to inform the Station Officer orally about the murder. He did accordingly. He was detained at the Police Station till 11 a.m., the next day and was then put up in the lock up. The Sub-Inspector took his thumb impression forcibly on three papers, but did not tell him the reason. The appellant adduced no evidence in support of his statements The Courts below rightly did not accept his version.

4. The evidence led by the prosecution consisted of the evidence relating to motive, to his extra-judicial confession to one Ujagar Singh when he was having a bath in the Canal, to his purchasing the sword and to his delivering it at the Police Station after he had dictated the report. Both the Courts below rightly believed the evidence about the motive and purchase of the sword by the appellant. The learned Sessions Judge believed Ujagar Singh and acted on the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant to him. The High Court however, did not rely on this extra-judicial confession. It relied on certain statements made by the appellant in his report dictated at the Police Station and considered those facts together with the motive and the evidence about the purchase of the sword sufficient to confirm the appellant s conviction and sentence.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the entire report dictated by the appellant was inadmissible in evidence as its contents amounted to a confession of the offence by the appellant made to a Police Officer and that the evidence relied upon by the High Court was insufficient to establish that the appellant had murdered Sheo Sahai. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent urged that the High Court was wrong in rejecting the statement of Ujagar Singh about the appellant s extra-judicial confession and that the extra-judicial confession, together with the circumstances relied on by the High Court, fully make out the prosecution case against the appellant. He also urges that such portions of the report which did not amount to a direct admission of the appellant s striking Sheo Sahai with a sword and thereby causing his death were admissible in evidence.

6. We do not consider it necessary to decide whether any portion of the report dictated by the appellant at the Police Station is admissible or not in evidence, as there is good independent evidence with respect to the four matters mentioned in the report and relied on by the High Court in considering the case against the appellant. These admissions of the appellant are (i) that he purchased a cycle from the deceased; (ii) that there was a quarrel in a play of cards; (iii) that he purchased a sword; and (iv) that he deposited the sword at the Police Station.

7. Ajit Singh, P. W. 5, deposed about the purchase o
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top