Judgement

MITTER, J.: The main question involved in this appeal is, whether the statement of the appellant recorded by a village Mukhiya before he was handed over to the police is admissible in evidence; and if so, whether the court could reject a part thereof and rely on the remainder along with other evidence adduced to hold him guilty of an offence he was charged with. The evidence against the appellant was all circumstantial and there can be no doubt that if the statement before the mukhiya is to be left out of consideration, the appellant cannot be held guilty.

2. The appellant who was a student of a school in Jhajha was charged with the murder of a fellow student of the same school and robbing him of the sum of Rs. 34 on October 12, 1961. The additional Sessions Judge, Santhal Parganas acquitted the appellant of both the charges but, in appeal, the High Court four him guilty the charge of murder and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. The appellant has come up to this Court by special leave.

3. The case of the prosecution leading to the discovery of the murder and arrest of the appellant is as follows. When the Barauni-Sealdah passenger reached Madhupur station at about 3.52 p. m. on l2th October 1961 the dead body of a person was discovered in the lavatory of a first class compartment of that train. One Anil Kumar Roy who wanted to board the said compartment at Jasidih station (in between Jhajha and Madhupur) could not get the door opened and had to board another compartment. The dead body was found with the neck cut and besmeared with blood. Blood was coming out from the veins of the neck and there was plenty of it on the floor of the lavatory. The clothes of the deceased and his belongings like a comb, handkerchief were also blood-stained and there were finger marks in the lavatory. Photographs of the deceased were taken and later the body was identified as that of Jai Prakash Dubey, a student of class X-B Science of Jhajha High School. The postmortem report showed that there were no less than six incised injuries caused by some sharp cutting weapon. The injuries were homicidal and death was caused by bleeding and shock.

4. The appellant was noticed by one Ram Kishore Pandey (P. W. 17) washing blood-stained clothes with soap in the river Patro about one hour before sunset on l2th October 1961. Pandey noticed that the left hand of the appellant was cut and he questioned the appellant as to how he had got his clothes blood-stained. The appellant s version was that when he was coming from the side of Gangamarni a cow boy had assaulted him and cut his finger with glass and snatched away his money. Reaching his house in village Saptar, Pandey mentioned this to Shiv Shankar Pandey, P. W. 25. Shiv Shankar Pandey learnt from his elder brother, Basdeo that a murder had been committed in the Barauni train and the murderer was missing. They suspected that the appellant might be the murderer and decided to go and search for him. All the three along with Pathal Turi and one Ajodhya Turi, two chowkidars went to the bank of that river but could not find the appellant. There they were told by Jagarnath Mahto and Rameshwar Mahto (P. Ws. 19 and 20) that they had noticed a man with wet clothes asking the way to Deoghar. Proceeding further, this group of persons found the appellant about a mile from Titithapur going behind a bullock cart, On being accosted the appellant said that he was going to village Roshan to his sister s place and that he had not committed any murder. The appellant was then wearing a pair of trousers and a shirt and had with him some books, an exercise book, a chhura (knife) besides a pair of trousers and a shirt which were both wet. They apprehended the appellant and took him to village Saptar. They called on the Sarpanch of the village who directed them to take the appellant to the Mukhiya not making any enquiry himself. The Mukhiya s place in Lorajore was at a distance of about a mile from Saptar. The party reach