1986 Supreme(Raj) 397
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
D.L.Mehta, G.K.Sharma, JJ.
Pawan Kumar & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
D. B. Cri. Appeal No. 400, 424 and 520 of 1978.
Decided On : 20-02-1986
For the Accused-appellant:N.L. Tibretral, Mr. Narendra Jain and Mr. Biri Singh, Advocates.
For the State: G.C Chatterjee, Public Prosecutor.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL - Murder - Circumstantial evidence - Confessional statement - Admissibility - Voluntariness - Recording of confessional statement - Procedure - Oath - Administration - Legality - Key recovery - Relevancy - Motive - Proof - Accused's statement under Section 313 CrPC - Denial of allegations - No defence witnesses examined.
Fact of the Case:
Anil, a 10-year-old boy, was found dead in a locked room at a Dharamshala. The prosecution alleged that Yogesh, Pawan Kumar, and Nirmal Kumar conspired to murder Anil to steal money and ornaments from two ladies who were staying with Anil. Yogesh allegedly confessed to the crime before a Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC, and a key was recovered at the instance of Pawan Kumar. The accused denied the allegations and did not examine any defence witnesses.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The confessional statement was inadmissible as it was not recorded in accordance with the provisions of Section 164 CrPC. The key recovered at the instance of Pawan Kumar was not connected to the crime. There was no evidence of a motive for the murder. The court also noted that the accused had denied the allegations and had not examined any defence witnesses.
Issues: 1. Whether the confessional statement was admissible in evidence. 2. Whether the key recovered at the instance of Pawan Kumar was relevant to the crime. 3. Whether the prosecution proved the motive for the murder. 4. Whether the accused's statement under Section 313 CrPC was sufficient to rebut the prosecution's case.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A confessional statement is admissible in evidence only if it is recorded in accordance with the provisions of Section 164 CrPC. The Magistrate must explain to the accused that he is not bound to make a confession and that it may be used against him. The Magistrate must also record the questions put to the accused and his answers. In the present case, the Magistrate failed to comply with these requirements, and therefore the confessional statement was inadmissible. 2. The key recovered at the instance of Pawan Kumar was not connected to the crime. The prosecution failed to establish that the key was used to lock the room where Anil's body was found. 3. The prosecution failed to prove the motive for the murder. There was no evidence that the accused had any reason to kill Anil. 4. The accused's statement under Section 313 CrPC was sufficient to rebut the prosecution's case. The accused denied the allegations and did not examine any defence witnesses. This raised a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the accused of all charges.
JUDGMENT
1. - All these three appeals arise out of the same judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City, dated, 25th July, 1978, by which he convicted and sentenced the accused appellants under Section 302 I P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and, in default of payment of fine, further to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment; under section 320/120B Indian Penal Code to three months rigorous imprisonment and a tine of Rs. 200/-; in default of payment of fine to undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment and, under Section 120 B I. P. C. to 3 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-; in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. According to the prosecution story a report was lodged on 16th July, 1976 at 7.30 A M. by Jorawar Mal Patni, Manager, Digamber Jain Kshetra, Mahaveerji before S 1-1 O. 1-lindon. In that report he alleged that in Dharmashala No. 33, a dead body of unknown person has been found in room No. 86. The room is closed and locked. On receipt of this information the Dy. Superintendent of Police alongwith the S. H. O. Hindon, went to Mahaveerji and got the room No. 86 opened. He saw a dead body of a boy aged 10 years lying on the ground. The Dy. Superintendent of police called a person from the market who could open the lock. The Photographer was also with the Dy. Superintendent of Police who took the photographs of the dead body. The dead body was decomposed and the insection megats were moving thereupon. Thereafter, the Deputy Superintendent of Police returned and again went in the morning of 17.7.1976 and he found that the knife had been thrusted in the mouth of the deceased as a result of which there was bleeding. He also noticed that a stone was placed on the head of the body As it was a case of murder he sent a constable for lodging a detailed First Information Report. He got prepared the site-plan and removed the clothes from the body of the deceased and also seized the lock which was on the room outside. 7 he doctor was called in the Dharmashala for performing post-mortem examination on the spot. The Manager of the Dharamshala, Shri Patni, also gave a written statement written by accused Yogesh to the Investigating Officer The dead body was identilited to be that of Anil alias Pappu, who was staying in room No 124 of the same Dharamsala. During investigation it was found that two ladies. Gyan Bai and Sarojani hid come alongwith this body (deceased) Anil to Mahavrerji for pilgrimage and they stayed with accused Yogesh in the same room No. 14, which had two portions. On 13.3.1976, the dec aced had gone alongwith this accused Yogesh and never returned thereafter. On the next day, Yogesh mixed some Bhang in the 'lassi' of these two ladies who felt giddiness and started vomitting. Thereafter, Yogesh was held up by Dharamshala authorities who then gave the statement, Ex. p. 1 to the Manager of the Dharamshala. Till then Yogesh did not disclose the story of murdering Anil. He was arrested on 28.7.1976 and, during investigation, it was found that Yogesh with the assistance of accused Pawan Kumar and Nirmal Kumar murdered the body. This was done by them to take away the money and ornaments of the ladies. On 2.8.1976, Nirmal Kumar and Pawan Kumar were also arrested. During police custody Pawan Kumar gave information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act with regard to the recovery of the key of the lock which was on room No. 86 and on his information, the key was recovered. During investigation another evidence which was collected against Pawan Kumar is that who two ladies felt giddiness and were vomitting. it is he who brought a tablet "sequil" which is used for stopping vomitting and the tablet was administered to the ladies. After the arrest of Yogesh Kumar he was produced before the Magistrate for recording his confessional statement under Section 164 Cr P. C. o
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
