Back
1981 Supreme(J&K) 84
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT Jammu
V. Khalid,A.S. Anand, JJ.
Balwant Rai - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Cr. Ist Appeal Nos. 1 And 2/1982
Decided On : 31 December, 1981
Advocate For Appellant: G.N. Goni
Advocate For Respondent: S.A. Salaria
A conviction cannot be sustained on circumstantial evidence alone if such evidence is consistent with the innocence of the accused.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - MURDER - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT - EXTRA JUDICIAL CONFESSION - ADMISSIBILITY - SECTION 342 CR. P. C. - FAILURE TO PUT INCRIMINATING MATERIALS TO THE ACCUSED - EFFECT - BENEFIT OF DOUBT.
Fact of the Case:
Nand Lal and his two sons Balwant Rai and Karan Singh were accused of having committed five murders. According to the prosecution, there was long standing enemity between Nand Lal on the one hand and Bua Ditta and Tarsem Lal on the other. There was an attempt to settle the disputes between them and accordingly a meeting was convened on 26-4-1975 at 7pm at the resident of Mela Ram Chand, Kans Raj, Jhalla Ram and Balwant Rai participated. When the talks of compromise were going on, Karan Singh came to the place and took Balwant Rai with him. After some time Karan Singh came again and asked Bua Ditta to accompany him to the Haveli to see his father Bua Ditta left the meeting and went alongwith Karan Singh. After a short while Nand Lal came and asked Resal Chand to accompany with him telling that Bua Ditta was calling him. Resal Chand left the place with Nand Lal Bua Ditta and Reasal Chand did not thereafter come back. On this Tula Ram sent Kans Raj to enquire about them. Kans Raj also did not come back. Those present at the meeting thereupon went to the Haveli of Nand Lal. Then they saw the dead bodies of Master Bua Ditta and Resal Chand cut wounds on their neck lying under the cots in a pool of blood. They proceed to the Police post they saw Nand Lal and Balwant Rai. On enquiry Nand Lal told them that he , Balwant Rai and Karan Singh had Killed Bua Ditta, Reasal Chand, Lohari Ram, Sansar Chand and Kans Raj Balwant Rai admitted before them that he and other accused had killed the above-mentioned persons.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused. The court held that the circumstantial evidence was not consistent only with the guilt of the accused and that there was a reasonable possibility of some one else having been responsible for the offence. The court also held that the confessional statement of Nand Lal was inadmissible as it was not put to the accused in his statement under section 342 Cr. P. C. The court further held that the extra judicial confession alleged to have been made by the appellant was also inadmissible as it was not put to the accused in his statement under section 342 Cr. P. C.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused. 2. Whether the circumstantial evidence was consistent only with the guilt of the accused. 3. Whether there was a reasonable possibility of some one else having been responsible for the offence. 4. Whether the confessional statement of Nand Lal was admissible. 5. Whether the extra judicial confession alleged to have been made by the appellant was admissible.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt the complicity of the accused who is alleged to have committed the offence. 2. The circumstantial evidence must be consistent only with the guilt of the accused and not consistent with his innocence also. 3. If the circumstances deducible from the evidence can be explained by any other reasonable hypothesis then the accused must have the benefit of the hypothesis. 4. A confessional statement is inadmissible if it is not put to the accused in his statement under section 342 Cr. P. C. 5. An extra judicial confession is inadmissible if it is not put to the accused in his statement under section 342 Cr. P. C.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed and the reference for confirmation of sentence were accordingly rejected.
1. These two appeal are against the conviction and sentence of Balwant Rai who was tried alonwith his father for offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 R.P.C. In a short judgement pronounced on 26-12-1983, we allowed the appeals and set aside the conviction and sentence against him. Our reasoned Judgement follows :-
2. Nand Lal and his two sons Balwant Rai and Karan Singh were accused of having committed five murders. According to the prosecution, there was long standing enemity between Nand Lal on the one hand and Bua Ditta and Tarsem Lal on the other. There was an attempt to settle the disputes between them and accordingly a meeting was convened on 26-4-1975 at 7pm at the resident of Mela Ram Chand, Kans Raj, Jhalla Ram and Balwant Rai participated. When the talks of compromise were going on, Karan Singh came to the place and took Balwant Rai with him. After some time Karan Singh came again and asked Bua Ditta to accompany him to the Haveli to see his father Bua Ditta left the meeting and went alongwith Karan Singh. After a short while Nand Lal came and asked Resal Chand to accompany with him telling that Bua Ditta was calling him. Resal Chand left the place with Nand Lal Bua Ditta and Reasal Chand did not thereafter come back. On this Tula Ram sent Kans Raj to enquire about them. Kans Raj also did not come back. Those present at the meeting thereupon went to the Haveli of Nand Lal. Then they saw the dead bodies of Master Bua Ditta and Resal Chand cut wounds on their neck lying under the cots in a pool of blood. They proceed to the Police post they saw Nand Lal and Balwant Rai. On enquiry Nand Lal told them that he , Balwant Rai and Karan Singh had Killed Bua Ditta, Reasal Chand, Lohari Ram, Sansar Chand and Kans Raj Balwant Rai admitted before them that he and other accused had killed the above-mentioned persons.
3. Tula Ram, Tej Ram, Vikal Chand, Hans Raj. Bishan Dass and Moti Ram, reported the matter to the police post. They produced Nand Lal and Balwant Rai before the police. The report was made at 20-30 hrs. At 22-30 hrs on the same day Sansar Chand S/o Ram Krishan had made a report to the same police post to the effect that he, his father and Lohari Ram had seen Nand Lal and his son Karan Singh one Killometer from the bus stand. Karan Singh had a rifle with him. He and Nand Lal threatned to settle the dispute between them then and there Karan Singh Immediately fired at Lohari Ram who fell on Sansar Chand, Sansar Chand Caught hold of Nand Lal when Karan Singh fired another round on Lahori Ram which hit him and he fell on the ground Though Ram Krishan pleaded with Karan Singh not to kill his father, Karan Singh threatned him with the same fate whereupon Ram Krishan ran and hide himself under the bushes. He heared another fire shot and shriekes of his father He Immediatly ran to the police post to report the matter.
4. The police registered two cases, one on the report of the Ram Krishan and the other on the report of Tula Ram. A Third case was also registered in regard to the murder of Kans Raj. Crime No, 95 relates to the murder of Lahori Ram and Sansar Singh in which the accused are Nand Lal and Karan Singh and Balwant Rai. Crime No: 97 relates to the murder of Kans Raj in which the accused are Nand Lal and Balwant Rai. The Chief Judicial Magistrate Kathua, committed the accused to stand trial before the session court by his order dated 27-12-1975. In FIR No 95 of 1975 of Police Station Kathua. On the same day he passed another committal order in FIR No. 96 of 1975,
5. The prosecution case is that the Bua Ditta and Resal Chand were done to death with an axe Lahori Ram and Sansar Chand were gunned to death. Balwant Rai is alleged to have made a disclouser statement on 24-7-1975 regarding the axe which was subsequently recovered at his instance from Nallah Hajwan. The police seized the cloth of the deceased persons and those of accused Balwant Rai and Nand Lal. There were blood stai
