SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1963 Supreme(Ori) 80

HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
R. L. Narasimham, C. J. And R. K. Das, J.
PARAMHANSA JADAB - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
Criminal Appeal 38  Of  1963
Decided On : OCTOBER 01, 1963

Advocates Appeared:
A.K.Padhi

The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of 'police custody' under Section 26 of the Evidence Act and its application to the admissibility of confessions made by the appellants.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code - Murder - Section 302/34 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the admissibility of an extra-judicial confession made by the appellant Paramhansa Jadav and the confession made by appellant Ram Jatan Jadav. The court also considered the evidence provided by the witness Munari and the corroborative evidence. The judgment highlighted the interpretation of 'police custody' under Section 26 of the Evidence Act and its application to the case. The decision was based on the evaluation of the confessions and the corroboration of evidence.

Fact of the Case:

The appellants were convicted for the murder of Dukh Haran Harijan and the subsequent disposal of his body. The case involved allegations of illicit relationships, a planned murder, and attempts to divert suspicion.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the confession made by appellant Paramhansa Jadav was inadmissible due to being made while in police custody, and there was insufficient corroboration of evidence against him. However, the confession made by appellant Ram Jatan Jadav was considered admissible to a limited extent and was used to corroborate the evidence provided by the witness Munari.

Issues: The admissibility of confessions, the interpretation of 'police custody' under Section 26 of the Evidence Act, and the evaluation of corroborative evidence were the key issues in the case.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of 'police custody' under Section 26 of the Evidence Act and the evaluation of the confessions made by the appellants, along with the corroborative evidence provided by the witness Munari.

Final Decision: The appeal of appellant Paramhansa Jadav was allowed, and his conviction and sentence were set aside, leading to his acquittal. However, the conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life passed for the offence of murder under Section 302/34, I. P. C. against appellant Ram Jatan Jadav were maintained.

NARASIMHAM, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal from the judgment of the Sessions Judge of Mayurbhanj keonjhar convicting the petitioners under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of one Dukh Haran Harijan on the 17th December, 1961 at about 10 P. M. and sentencing them to R. I. for lite. The learned Sessions Judge further convicted them under Section 201/34, I. P. C. but did not pass a separate sentence for that offence.

( 2 ) THE crime is said to have been committed in a jungle near Kiriburn in the district of Keonjhar where due to extensive mining projects recently started by the national Mineral Development Corporation there is a large colony of up-country labourers including several people from Gorakhpur and other districts of Uttar pradesh. One of these labourers was the deceased Dukh Haran Harijan, who came there from his village in Gorakhpur district accompanied by his wife Munari (P. W. 19) and was employed under Dr. Asthana (P. W. 6), the senior Geologist in the said Corporation. One of his relatives is Ram Murat (P. W. 13) who was also working there as a Chowkidar in that project. The two appellants Ram Jatan Jadab and Paramhansa Jadab also belonged to Gorakhpur district and they were working at Kiriburn as Choukidars. Appellant Ram Jatan Jadab was the Choukidar in the prospecting camp and appellant Parmahans Jadab was working as Choukidar at another camp on a hill-top some miles away. It was alleged that these two appellants seduced Munari (P. W. 19) and for some days she actually lived with appellant Paramhans on the hill-top. Her husband Dukh Haran made a complaint before Dr. Asthana P. W. 6 against this conduct of the appellants and as this became a scandal, Dr. Asthana discharged appellant Ram Jatan Jadab from service. He could not punish appellant Paramhans as he was working under the senior Administrative Officer, Mr. Kachru. Hence on the suggestion of Dr. Asthana a petition (Ext. 6) was prepared and signed by Dukh Haran complaining against the conduct of appellant Paramhans in carrying on illicit intrigue with Dukh Haran's wife. The petition was however not sent to the Senior Administrative Officer on account of the happening of the subsequent events which eventually ended in the murder of Dukh Haran.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution the circumstances leading to the murder of Dukh haran are as follows : the two appellants decided to get rid of the inconvenient husband. But with a view to allay his suspicion they pretended to agree to his taking back his wile and returning to his home in Gorakhpur Dist. Accordingly dukh Haran gave up his job on 14-12-61 and received his wages for the week ending 14-12-61 on the 16th or 17th Dec. 1961. Then on the 17th december 1961 the two appellants Dukh Haran and his wife Munari P. W. 19 proceeded from Kiriburn to the nearest Railway Station at Bada jamda. But the appellants were anxious to divert suspicion from themselves and hence they all went to the Mechanical draftsman of the project (P. W. 9) where, at the suggestion of the appellant Paramhans, a sulenama (compromise petition) was written to the effect that the dispute between the appellants and Dukh Haran was settled; that Dukh haran's wife was returned to him (Dukh Haran) with her ornaments and the couple was returning to their native place. P. W. 9 accordingly scribed the document and handed it over to the appellant Paramhans. Then at about 7 P. M. Dukh Haran was said to have handed over some silver ornaments of his-wife to Paramhans who pledged them with a hotel-keeper, P. W. 10 for Rs. 25/- and received an advance of Rs. 15/-from him. The balance of Rs. 10/- was paid several days later by P. Ws. to Paramhans. Dukh Haran was also present then and the hotel-keeper (P. W. 10) was informed that the money was required to pay the expenses of Dukh Haran to go to his native place and a document was also executed by Dukh Haran in favour of the hotel keeper (Ext. 7 ). Thereafter the party proceeded toward



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top