Back
1975 Supreme(J&K) 55
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR
Jaswant Singh,Mufti Baha-ud-Din Farooqi, JJ.
State - Appellant
Versus
Suram Singh - Respondent
Acquittal Appeal No. 25/1974
Decided On : 18 July, 1975
Advocate For Appellant: O.N. Tikku
Advocate For Respondent: I.K. Kotwal
A confession made by an accused person under compulsion of oath is inadmissible in evidence as it violates the accused's right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - MURDER - SECTION 302, 451 R. P. C - FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND EVIDENCE REVIEWED - CONFESSION UNDER SECTION 164 CR. P. C. - HELD INADMISSIBLE AS INVOLUNTARY AND MADE UNDER COMPULSION OF OATH - CONVICTION SET ASIDE.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was tried for offenses under sections 302 and 451 R. P. C. for allegedly trespassing into the compound of the complainant's house with the intent to have illicit intercourse with his daughter, stabbing the complainant's son, and causing his death. The accused was acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, and the State appealed the acquittal.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court upheld the acquittal, finding that the prosecution's evidence was insufficient to prove the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found that the accused's confession under section 164 Cr. P. C. was inadmissible as it was involuntary and made under compulsion of oath.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. Whether the accused's confession under section 164 Cr. P. C. was admissible.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court found that the prosecution's evidence was insufficient to prove the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted that there was no eyewitness to the stabbing, and that the only evidence against the accused was his confession, which was inadmissible. 2. The court held that the accused's confession under section 164 Cr. P. C. was inadmissible as it was involuntary and made under compulsion of oath. The court noted that the accused was in police custody for a prolonged period before making the confession, and that he was subjected to severe beating during his detention. The court also noted that the confession was made on oath, which violated the accused's right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the State's appeal and upheld the accused's acquittal.
"Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find that there is no force in this appeal which is therefore dismissed- Reasoned judgment will follow"
2. We now proceed to give our reasons
3. Briefly put, the prosecution case was that on the night intervening 13 May, 972, at about 1030 P M. the accused trespassed into the compound of Chum Lal P. W. with a view to having illicit intercourse with his daughter, Mst. Guddi, P. W., who lay asleep in the compound along with other members of the family. Suspecting the accused to be a thief Mst. Gyanoo wife of Chuni Lal, who was still half-asleep, raised an, alarm The alarm raised by her woke up her husband, Chuni Lal and her son, Balwant Paj. They got up and chased the accused that had mean while left the spot lest he should be noticed or apprehended. The accused encountered Balwant Raj on the periphery of a hereby air field -which the accused could not cross in hurry, as it was forced -with started wire, and, there, in desperation stabbed Balwant Raj in his abdomen with a knife. Balwant Raj succumbed to the stab injuries on the following day. Chuni Lal reported the matter to the police as per report EXP. A. It is suggested that curing investigate n the police recovered a knife, Bush shirt and Payjama stained with blood belonging to the accused pursuant to a disclosure statement made by him. It is also suggested that the accused made a confessional statement under section 64 Cr. P C before Munsiff, Judicial Magistrate, Jammu but he subsequently resiled from it at the trial.
4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has negatived the connection of the accused with the occurrence, which otherwise, he says, is not open to question. In view of the certain extraordinary features of the case and the extremely, unsatisfactory nature of the evidence we are inclined to share the conviction of the Learned Additional Sessions Judge as regards the innocence of the accused.
5. There is no witness who might have noticed the accused trespassing into the compound attached to the house of Chuni Lal on the fateful night or who might, have later seen the accused stabbing the deceased Munshi Ram P. W. however states that he heard the deceased screaming, and alongside heard the accused remarking, which he could identify. The remark allegedly made by the accused does not find place in the first information report EXP. A lodged by Chuni Lal or in his statement subsequently made at the trial, although he too testifies to the deceased having screamed that he was dying and wanted help That apart, the later part of the statement of Munshi Ram is clear enough to demolish the assertion made by him According to him, he mentioned the fact of the accused having hurled the invective on the deceased for the first time before Manobar Lal, Inspector, C I. D. who took up the investigation six months after the occurrence although meanwhile the territorial police bad visited the spot twice to probe into the matter when he along with others was also interrogated. He even adds that he did not mention this fact to anybody else before. Cross examined on merits of the statement he first of all says that he could not clearly identify the voice of the accused and bursts out at the end with a frank statement that it was under police pressure that he attributed the remark to the accused and to the same having been identified by him. Earlier, he says. Mr. Manohar Lal Inspector C I. D took him into custody along-with serval other person
