Back
1946 Supreme(SC) 26
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
LORD SIMONDS, MR. M. R. JAYAKAR AND SIR JOHN BEAUMONT.
NATHA SINGH - Appellant
Versus
KING-EMPEROR - Respondents
On Appeal from the High Court at Lahore.
Decided On : July 17, 1946.
Solicitors for appellants:Douglas Grant & Dold. Solicitor for respondent: The Solicitor, India Office.
Evidence of another crime is admissible to establish motive for the crime charged under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, provided it is not used to show a general propensity to commit crimes. Eye-witness testimony may also prevail over conflicting medical expert opinions.
Headnote:(A) Indian Evidence Act - Section 8 - Admissibility of evidence of another crime - Evidence that the accused committed another crime is admissible if it is used to establish the motive for the crime charged, regardless of whether the suggested motive is improbable. Such evidence is inadmissible if it is offered to show that the accused is a person likely to have committed the crime.
(B) Criminal Procedure - Conflict between medical evidence and eye-witness testimony - The court is entitled to believe eye-witnesses even if their testimony conflicts with the opinion of a medical expert regarding the time of death.
Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted of murder. At the trial, evidence was admitted that the appellants had committed a previous murder, with the prosecution arguing that the current crime was committed to conceal the former. The appellants were later acquitted of the previous murder. It was also argued that the medical evidence regarding the time of death contradicted the testimony of the eye-witnesses.
Findings of Court:
The evidence regarding the previous crime was properly admitted to establish motive. The conflict between the medical evidence and the eye-witnesses did not invalidate the conviction, as the lower courts were entitled to believe the witnesses.
Issues: Whether evidence of another crime is admissible to prove motive for the crime charged and whether a conviction can be sustained when medical evidence contradicts eye-witness testimony.
Ratio Decidendi: Evidence of another crime is admissible under Section 8 of the Evidence Act to establish motive, provided it is not used to show a general propensity to commit crimes. Additionally, the testimony of eye-witnesses can prevail over medical opinions, and such conflicts must be raised at the trial or high court level to be considered.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
crime and sentencing
-
offences against the person
- murder
-
offences against the person
-
practice and procedure
-
evidence
- admissibility
- motive
- medical evidence
- approver evidence
-
trial process
- assessors
-
appellate procedure
- grounds of appeal
-
evidence
Judgement
Appeal (No. 98 of 1945), by special leave, from two judgments and orders of the High Court (Beckett and Marten JJ.) (June 7, 1945) which dismissed the appeals of the appellants and confirmed the sentences of death passed on them by the judgment and order of the Sessions judge, Amritsar (February 9, 1945).
The ground on which special leave to appeal was granted was the allegation that evidence that the appellants had committed a murder other than that with which they -were charged was wrongly admitted. That was the principal point argued on this appeal.
Law Rep. 73 Ind. App. 195 ( 1945- 1946)
Natha Singh V. King-Emperor 99
The facts appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.
1946. June 18. Pullan and Jayakar for the appellants. The main ground on which special leave to appeal was granted was the allegation that evidence of another crime has been used to secure the conviction of the appellants. The ostensible reason for admitting that evidence was that it showed that the present crime was committed for the purpose of concealing evidence of the former, which up till then was undetected. That is an unreasonable motive, and was not accepted by the High Court. Reliance is placed on the dictum of Lord Lore-burn in Rex v. Ball ([ 1911] A. C. 47, 71) that " Courts ought to be very careful "to preserve the time-honoured law of England, that you " cannot convict a man of one crime by proving that he had " committed some other crime/ The admission of the approvers evidence is not justified by ss. 8 or n of the Indian Evidence Act. [Reference was made to Parbhu Das v. Queen-Empress (( 1874) XI. Bom. H. C. R. 90.) and Rex v. Ellis ((1826) 6 B. & Cr. 145.).] A decision based on illegal procedure is itself a failure of justice N.
A. Subramania Iyer v. King-Emperor (( 1901) L. R. 28 I. A. 257.). Further, the medical evidence as to the time of death contradicted the evidence of alleged eye-witnesses, and the latter should have been disbelieved. If the Board consider that a conviction might be based on other evidence, it is open to them to review the evidence and, in particular, to take into account the discrepancy between the medical evidence and that of the alleged eye-witnesses. The admission at the trial of evidence relating to the murder of Bhan Singh in order to prove the murder of Karnail Singh is contrary to law. [Reference was made to the procedure adopted in Chainchal Singh v. King-Emperor (( 1945) L. R. 72
I. A. 270.).]
Megaw for the respondent, was not called upon.
July 17. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by SIR JOHN BEAUMONT. Their Lordships have already announced that they will humbly advise His Majesty that this appeal be dismissed, and they now give their reasons. The appellants were tried and convicted on a charge of having murdered one Karnail Singh on September 19, 1944. There were four alleged eye-witnesses of the murder, namely, the approver Qadir, who said that he had been with the appellants, Surain Singh, an uncle, Mt. Gurmej Kaur the wife, and Jita, a servant, of the murdered man. Karnail Singh had a brother, Bhan Singh, whose wife was said to have been in illicit intimacy with the appellant Natha Singh, and Karnail Singh is said to have objected to this intimacy. There seems no reason to doubt the existence of this intimacy, nor that it had occasioned ill-will between Karnail Singh and his brother on the one hand and Natha Singh on the other. The other appellant, Budha Singh, was a friend of Natha Singh.
On October 1, 1944, after the appellants had been arrested for the murder of Karnail Singh, a body without a head was found, and this was said to be the body of Bhan Singh. On the information of the approver, Qadir, the appellants were also charged with the murder of Bhan Singh. This charge was tried, with different assessors, immediately after the conclusion of the trial of the appellants for the murder of Karnail Singh, but before judgment in the latter trial had been delivered. Jud
