Back
1968 Supreme(Del) 126
High Court Of Delhi
JODHU - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF DELHI - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL 1 of 1968
Decided On : 09/13/1968
HEM CHANDRA DHAR, INDER SINGH, K.C.Pandit, K.C.Sudarshan
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - MURDER - CONVICTION - EVIDENCE - CONFESSION - RETRACTED CONFESSION - CORROBORATION - MEDICAL EVIDENCE - DISCOVERY OF WEAPONS - INDEPENDENT WITNESSES - INTEGRITY OF POLICE INVESTIGATION - SECTION 30, 33, 157, 164, 27, 288 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT, 1872.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution case was that the deceased was murdered by the appellants in complicity with one Parma who was granted pardon and examined as an approver at the trial. The appellants denied their involvement and claimed that they were falsely implicated by the police.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the approver had resiled from his statement and that the retracted confession of accused Roshan Lal was not voluntary and was not corroborated by the medical evidence. The court also found that the discovery of weapons was not properly proved and that the integrity of the police investigation was open to grave suspicion. The court held that the conviction of the appellants was not sustainable and acquitted them.
Issues: 1. Whether the retracted confession of accused Roshan Lal was voluntary and corroborated by the medical evidence? 2. Whether the discovery of weapons was properly proved? 3. Whether the integrity of the police investigation was open to grave suspicion?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A retracted confession is a weak link against the maker and more so against a co-accused. It must be looked upon with greater concern unless the reasons given for having made it in the first instance (not for retraction as erroneously stated in same cases) are on the face of them false. Once the confession is proved satisfactorily any admission made therein must be satisfactorily withdrawn or the making of it explained as having proceeded from fear, duress, promise or the like from someone in authority. 2. The discovery of weapons was not properly proved as the witnesses were not independent and the integrity of the police investigation was open to grave suspicion. 3. The integrity of the police investigation was open to grave suspicion as the accused were arrested on different dates than what was recorded in the police diary, the accused were not sent to judicial lock-up after their confession was recorded, and the confessional statement was supplied to the police soon after it was recorded by the Magistrate.
Final Decision: The conviction of the appellants was set aside and they were acquitted.
( 1 ) THE appellants (1) Jodbu son of Sarjan Ram (23 years), (2) Chandu Ram son. of Jai Kishan (19 years) and (3) Roshan Lal son of Dheba Ram (16 years) were tried together by the Sessions Judge, Mandi, Kulu and Lahanl and Spiti Districts at Mandi for an offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code, for having committed the murder of one Gulab Singh in the morning hours of August 19, 1966 at village Gahar, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, in complicity with one Parma son of Munshi, a young lad of 17 years who was granted pardon and was examined as an approver at the trial. All the three accused have been found guilty and have been sentenced to life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 200. 00 each; and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months each. The accased have appealed against their conviction and sentence to this Court.
( 2 ) THE prosecution case as accepted by the learned Sessions Judge is that the deceased Gulab Singh was living with his mother-in-law Smt. Pan Dei in village Chhota Samahal and was managing her affairs. The family of Jodhu accused and the mother-in-law of the deceased were owners of contiguous Rutas (grasslands) in village Gahar. This led to constant quarrels between them. The prosecution also suggested that Jodbu accased suspected the deceased of having illicit intimacy with the wife of his brother and examined Kehar Singh (P. W. 15) who stated that there were rumonrs in the village aboat illicit connection between the deceased and Jodhu s sister in-law. This suggestion is also reflected in the confessional statements of the approver and accased Roshan Lal. Bat the learned Sessions Judge does not appear to have REFERRED TO it in bis jndgment nor has it been pressed before as by the learned coansel for the State. On the nights of 17th and 18th August, 1966 all the three accused including Parma who tamed approver met at the residence of Jodhu and decided to murder Gulab Singb. In the morning hours of 19th August, 1966 when the deceased left his house to cut grass from the Ruta, the accused including the approver followed him Accused Jodha armed himself with drant (Ex. P. 1) while accused Chandu was armed with axe (Ex. P. 2 ). The other two, namely Roshan and Puma were each provided by Jodhu with dands (Exhibits P. 22 and P. 23} Jodbu accused was leading the party, On seeing the deceased, they lay in ambush. After a little while Jodhu pounced upon him and snatched from his bands the sickle (Ex P 7 ). All of them then made a concerted attack on the deceased. Roshan Lal held him from one arm while Parma took hold of the other arm Chandu held him from one leg and testicles while Jodhu managed to put the parna cloth belonging to the deceased (Ex. P. 8) into his mouth and gagged him. Jodbu then pressed the chest of the deceased with his leg with the result that the deceased became unconscious. The articles belonging to the deceased i. e. chhiki (the net for tying grass), sickle parna cloth and chappals (shoes) were thrown away and the body was dragged and brought near a small Alsan tree and a water spring. After laying the body on stone with its face downwards, Jodhu accused gave blows with drant (Exhibit P. 1) on the bead of the deceased while Chandu gave blows with the axe (Exhibit P. 2) on the legs of the deceased. After committing the murder they left the dead body there and climbed up the ridge where Jodhu loosened and rolled down a stone to make it appear that the deceased had met bis end by a fall from the precipice. All of them then returned to the village. While returning from the place of occurrence they were seen by one Gokal (P. W. 9 ). The blood on the blades of the axe and the drant Was washed and all the four weapons of offence were hidden by Jodhu accused in an open place behind his house.
( 3 ) THE dead body of the deceased was seen at the place of occurrence by one Kanshi Ram (Public Witness
