1. Murder charge — Evidence based on contradictory police statements by co-accused — Admissibility of statements against co-prisoners. (Para 2 , 4 )
Back
Next 
1948 Supreme(SC) 65
Privy Council At Fiji
Macdermott, Morton of Henryton, Oaksey, Justice Lords Porter, JJ.
Walli Mohammad and another -Appellant
Versus
The King. -Resopndent
Privy Council Appeal No. 16 of 1947
Decided On : 28-07-1948
Advocates Appeared:
Burchells, King, Hy. S.L. Polak and Co., King, G. Lequesne, Frank Gahan, Charles Bagram, C.S. Rewcastle
Burchells, King, Hy. S.L. Polak and Co., King, G. Lequesne, Frank Gahan, Charles Bagram, C.S. Rewcastle
Convictions cannot be based on mere suspicion or the failure of an accused to testify. Where statements of one accused are inadmissible against a co-accused, the case against each must be evaluated independently; admission of presence and contradictory statements are insufficient to prove guilt.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Law - Admissibility of Evidence - Statements made by an accused to the police are inadmissible against a co-accused; the case against each accused must be considered separately to determine if a deduction of guilt can legitimately be drawn from their own statements. (Paras 2, 18)
(B) Evidence - Sufficiency of Proof - Suspicion, regardless of its strength, does not constitute proof; contradictory statements by an accused regarding their movements and an admission of presence at the scene of the crime are insufficient to justify a conviction without independent evidence of participation. (Paras 16, 17, 19)
(C) Criminal Procedure - Conduct of Accused - The failure of an accused to enter the witness box or provide a consistent statement from the dock may be considered by the court, but cannot serve as the primary basis for conviction in the absence of evidence of participation in the crime. (Para 16)
Facts of the case:
Two individuals were jointly charged with murder. The prosecution's case rested on several contradictory statements made by each accused to the police. In these statements, each accused admitted presence at the scene but denied participation, while implicating the other and several other persons. The other implicated persons provided alibis which were accepted by the trial court. The accused did not testify during the trial.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the evidence against each accused, when viewed independently, was insufficient to prove guilt. There was no satisfactory evidence of motive. The trial court's directions to the assessors erroneously suggested a conspiracy that had neither been charged nor proved.
Issues: Whether a conviction for murder can be legally sustained based solely on the contradictory statements of the accused and their admission of presence at the crime scene, particularly when the statements of one accused are inadmissible against the other.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that suspicion is not proof. In cases where evidence against one accused is inadmissible against another, the strength of the prosecution's case must be tested by examining each accused's case separately. Admission of presence and the provision of inconsistent accounts are insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially when no motive is established and no independent evidence of participation exists.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Prosecution contends that elimination of other suspects and contradictory statements of accused imply guilt — Defense denies participation in the crime. (Para 15 )
3. Appeal allowed — Appellants acquitted and discharged. (Para 1 )
4. Are statements made by one accused to the police admissible against a co-accused?
No, statements made by one accused to the police are inadmissible against his fellow prisoner. (Para 2 )
Lord Porter.-
In this case, their Lordships have already stated that they would humbly advise His Majesty that the verdict of murder recorded against the two appellants could not stand and that they should be acquitted of the charge made against them. At the same time, their Lordships indicated their intention to set out the grounds for tendering such advice. In fulfilment of which promise they now give their reasons.
[2] The two appellants were jointly accused of murdering one Lachmi Prasad on 8th September 1945. Undoubtedly, Lachmi Prasad was murdered on that day, but the only direct evidence adduced by the prosecution against the prisoners was that contained in six statements made to the police by Walli Mohammad and six separate statements made by Ali. The statements were taken between the 9th and the 19th September and in those made by himself each of the accused gave contradictory accounts of his movements on the evening and night of the 8th and 9th September. Each began by denying any knowledge of the events leading to the crime or of the crime itself, but each at a later stage though denying any participation in it, admitted his own presence when it was committed and implicated his fellow prisoner amongst others. Both expressed their repugnance to the violent act, their horror at its commission, and its unexpectedness. Neither however went into the witness box or made any statement from the dock except a denial of his participation in the murder and the case against the prisoners therefore rests upon the evidence contained in and inferences to be drawn from their several statements. It has to be borne in mind that the statements of each of the accused men to the police are inadmissible against his fellow prisoner. Accordingly, the question for their Lordships' determination is whether a deduction of guilt can legitimately be drawn in the case of either of the accused from the contents of his own statements.
3 Two further circumstances must be referred to :
[4] The prosecution produced three statements-alleged to have been made to the police officers in charge of the case, one by Bhagwan Devi who had been living with Walli Mohammad for some four or five years though not married to him, one by her father Ramsumar and one by his son Ramsaran. Each of these statements would, if they had been admissible in evidence, have been favourable to Walli and unfavourable to Ali Mohammad.
5. All three of the persons concerned, however, when called as witnesses, denied having made or understood the statements attributed to them and further denied the matters therein alleged and both, in the Magistrate's Court and in the High Court said they were untrue. These three statements were therefore inadmissible whether in favour of or against either of the prisoners and the prosecution's case, therefore, against each man depends solely upon his own individual statements and any deductions which can be drawn from them.
[6] Walli Mohammad's first two statements merely asserted that he knew nothing of the crime. In the third, however, he admitted being present when Lachmi Prasad was killed, but alleged that he personally had nothing to do with it and implicated three persons, viz., one Shiu Sharan son of Panchu, one Bishun Deo, and his fellow accused. In the fourth he gave a different account of the events, made Shiu Sharan strike the fatal blow, but implicated the same three persons and Ramsumar.
[7] He gave as the reason for the murder that the victim was friendly with Ramsumar's two-daughters and that, the other three whom he mentioned also had friendship with the two girls.
[8] His fifth statement gave a still different account of the events, accused Ramsumar of striking and killing Lachmi Prasad, said that Ramsumar, Bishun Deo, and he himself alone were present and repeated that he had neither known of or taken part in the murder but had run away immediately after he saw it take place. He added that he had kept silence because he was threatened by R
