Back
1983 Supreme(Raj) 446
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
M.C.Jain, S.C.Agrawal, JJ.
Gulab - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Criminal (Jail) Appeal No. 444 of 1977.
Decided On : 10-08-1983
The testimony of a child witness, extra-judicial confession, and the conduct of the accused in surrendering and producing the weapon and clothes stained with blood can be considered as evidence to establish the guilt of the accused in a criminal case.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL - Murder - Conviction - Appeal - Evidence - Appreciation - Child witness - Testimony - Corroboration - Extra-judicial confession - Admissibility - Conduct of accused - Surrender - Production of weapon and clothes stained with blood - Significance.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of his elder brother, Vala, on the night intervening March 9 and 10, 1977, and was sentenced to imprisonment for life. The prosecution's case was that the appellant, the deceased, and his wife were sleeping in the 'Barsal' of the deceased's house when the appellant inflicted injuries on the deceased with a sword. The deceased's daughter, Kumari Shanti, who was sleeping with the deceased, witnessed the incident and informed Nathu, who came with Smt. Daludi, the deceased's wife, to the house and found the deceased lying on the ground and the appellant missing. The appellant was later arrested and produced at the police station, where he surrendered and produced the sword and clothes stained with human blood.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing, beyond reasonable doubt, that it was the appellant who had inflicted the injuries on the person of the deceased with a sword on the night intervening March 9 and 10, 1977, and that the said injuries resulted in the death of Vala on the spot. The court relied on the ocular evidence of Kumari Shanti, the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant to Kantilal, and the fact that the appellant surrendered at P.S. Galiakot on 12-3-1977 and while so surrendering produced a sword and a bushshirt and dhoti which were stained with human blood.
Issues: 1. Whether the testimony of a child witness, Kumari Shanti, was reliable and sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant. 2. Whether the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant to Kantilal was admissible and reliable. 3. Whether the conduct of the appellant in surrendering and producing the weapon and clothes stained with blood was a circumstance connecting him with the crime.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the testimony of Kumari Shanti was reliable and sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant. The court noted that Kumari Shanti had given a straight forward and consistent account of the incident, and that her testimony was corroborated by other evidence, such as the site plan and the memo of site inspection, which showed the presence of three cots in the 'saal' of the deceased's house, and the testimony of Bhoora, who had deposed about the presence of the appellant in the house of the deceased on the evening prior to the incident. 2. The court held that the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant to Kantilal was admissible and reliable. The court noted that the appellant had made the confession voluntarily and that the language used by the appellant was clear and unambiguous. The court also noted that the appellant's subsequent conduct in surrendering himself to the police and producing the sword and clothes stained with human blood supported the inference that he was confessing to the crime. 3. The court held that the conduct of the appellant in surrendering and producing the weapon and clothes stained with blood was a circumstance connecting him with the crime. The court noted that the appellant had surrendered himself at the police station on his own accord and that he had produced the sword and clothes which were found to be stained with human blood. The court held that this conduct was consistent with the guilt of the appellant.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the Sessions Judge were upheld.
