JUDGMENT :- This is an appeal from jail by one Laldin against the judgment and order of the learned Ses. J. of Mahasu and Sirmur, dated 17-4-1951, convicting him under S. 302, read with S. 34, I. P. C., and sentencing him to transportation for life.

2. Four persons, namely, Mohammad Ali, his brother Ranjha, son Bhura and son-in-law Laldin (the present appellant), were committed to sessions to take their trial under S. 302, read with S. 34, I. P. C., for the murder of one Durga.

3. The prosecution case was that Durga deceased having killed some buffaloes of Mohammad Ali, the said four accused avenged themselves by making a forced entry into the dogri, or small house, of Durga at about midnight between the 23rd and 24th of August, 1950, and strangled him to death. Mohammad Ali is said to have sat on Durgas chest, Bhura to have held him by the arms and the appellant by the feet, and Ranjha to have throttled him to death.

4. Mohammad Ali having died after commitment, the trial of the other three accused, who were represented by a counsel, commenced before the Ses., J., on 16-4-1951. Their respective charges were read out to the accused on that date. The present appellant pleaded guilty and the plea was recorded, and the following day the Ses., J., convicted him thereon. The other two, who pleaded not guilty, were tried separately.

5. The law as regards acceptance of the plea of guilty is well settled. When an accused pleads guilty he is not to be taken at his word unless the plea is expressed in unmistakable terms with full appreciation of the essential ingredients of the offence. R. V. Golathan, (1915) 84 LJKB 758, and Nga Ywa v. Emperor, AIR (22) 1935 Rang, 49 at p. 51. And this rule of law is applied with all the greater stringency where the offence charged is so complicated in its nature and serious in its consequences as murder. In capital cases therefore Courts prefer to err on the side of caution and the practice has grown up not to accept the plea of guilty. Emperor v. Chinia Bhika, 3 Cr LJ 337 at p. 338 (Bom); Queen Empress v. Chinna Pavuchi, 23 Mad 151 at p. 154; Dalli v. Emperor, AIR (9) 1922 All 233(1); and Abdul Kader v. Emperor, AIR (34) 1947 Bom 345.

6. The charge to which the appellant was required to plead was whether on the night in question he in the company of Mohammad Ali, Bhura and Ranjha entered the room of Durga with the common intention of committing his murder, and in furtherance of that common intention Mohammad Ali sat on his chest, Bhura caught hold of his arms and the appellant his feet, and Ranjha throttled him to death.

7. The record shows that the appellant pleaded guilty to the charge. Very rightly the Ses. J. proceeded thereafter to examine the appellant at length. In this statement, so much of it as is relevant, the appellant said that after approaching various persons for redress, but without avail, Mohammad Ali and Ranjha came to him on August 23 and, after some confabulations between themselves, told the appellant that they were going on some errand and asked him to accompany them although he had fever then. They further told him that they had been to Theog but nobody listened to them, and therefore they would take revenge with their own hands. The appellant replied that he could not accompany them as he had fever. Ranjha caught him forcibly by the arm and forcioly they took him with them to Sawahu (the locality where the deceaseds dogri was). Ranjha broke open the door of the dogri with a kick and went in and lighted a match and caught Durga by the neck. Mohammad Ali sat on Durgas chest, Bhura caught hold of his arms and the appellant was asked to keep guard outside. Two men and a small boy came from outside and shouted to Durga that they had arrived. Then the appellant and his companions returned from there.

8. Before examining this statement it may be mentioned that the appellant went on to refer to a confession he had made under S. 164, Criminal P. C. That statement has not, however, been proved

Click Here to Read the rest of this document