Back
1962 Supreme(Ori) 27
ORISSA HIGH COURT
R.K. DAS, G.K. MISRA, JJ.
Sk. Abdul Hanan and others, Accused - Appellants
v.
State of Orissa - Respondent.
Death Ref. No. 1 of 1962 with Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 1962
Decided On : 20-4-1962.
M.N. Das and P. Roy, for Appellants; Government Advocate, for Respondent.
A retracted confession can be used as evidence against the accused if it is corroborated by other evidence.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - Murder - Conviction and sentence - Confession - Retracted confession - Corroboration - Confession of co-accused - Evidence Act, 1872, Section 30.
Fact of the Case:
Three appellants were convicted of murder, concealment of the body, and disposal of the truck belonging to the deceased. The main evidence against them was their confessional statements, which were later retracted. The prosecution also relied on circumstantial evidence, such as the appellants' association with the deceased immediately after the murder, the recovery of articles belonging to the deceased from the crime scene, and the appellants' own admissions.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the confessional statements of the appellants were voluntary and were corroborated by other evidence. The court also held that the confession of one co-accused could be used against the other co-accused under Section 30 of the Evidence Act, provided that it was corroborated in material particulars. The court found that the circumstantial evidence in the case was sufficient to corroborate the confessional statements and that the appellants were guilty of murder and concealment of the body.
Issues: 1. Whether the confessional statements of the appellants were voluntary and were corroborated by other evidence. 2. Whether the confession of one co-accused could be used against the other co-accused under Section 30 of the Evidence Act. 3. Whether the circumstantial evidence in the case was sufficient to corroborate the confessional statements.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the confessional statements of the appellants were voluntary and were corroborated by other evidence. The court relied on the fact that the appellants had been given due caution and had been remanded to jail custody for reflection before making their statements. The court also found that the confessional statements were consistent with the other evidence in the case, such as the recovery of articles belonging to the deceased from the crime scene and the appellants' own admissions. 2. The court held that the confession of one co-accused could be used against the other co-accused under Section 30 of the Evidence Act, provided that it was corroborated in material particulars. The court found that the confession of one co-accused was corroborated by the confessional statements of the other co-accused and by the circumstantial evidence in the case. 3. The court found that the circumstantial evidence in the case was sufficient to corroborate the confessional statements. The court relied on the fact that the appellants were in the association of the deceased immediately after the murder, that articles belonging to the deceased were recovered from the crime scene, and that the appellants had made admissions about their involvement in the crime.
Final Decision: The court convicted the appellants of murder and concealment of the body and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The court also acquitted the appellants of the charge of disposal of the truck.
JUDGMENT
MISRA, J. : The three appellants have been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Mayurbhanj-Keonjhar under Sections 302, 201 and 404/511, I. P. C. Sk. Abdul Hanan (accused No. 1) and Naku Majhi (accused No. 2) were each sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302, I. P. C., to two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 404/511, I. P. C. the sentences to run consequently. Raibu Patna (accused No. 3) was sentenced to death under Section 302, I. P. C. and no separate sentence was passed under other sections. The learned Sessions Judge has made a reference under Section 374, Criminal Procedure Code for confirmation of the sentence of death.
2. The prosecution case is that deceased Balbir Singh and P.W. 11 Jangir Singh were two brothers. They had come from Delhi and were giving on hire two diesel trucks. Truck O.R. C. 4174 stood in the name of the deceased and, Darsan Singh, one of the absconding persons, was the driver of that Truck. P.W. 10 Baburam was the driver of the other Truck P.N.E. 7478 which stood in the name of Jangir Singh. On April 22, 1961 Darshan Singh had already made three trips in Truck O.R.C. 4174 with P.W. 1 Madanlal, the cleaner of the truck. In the evening Darshan Singh left P.W. 1 at his residence as the latter had some injuries on his leg and asked him to take rest as hs would go with the truck to have another trip. At about mid-night Darsan Singh returned with the truck in which the three accused persons and another coolie Baya Munda (who is absconding) were sitting. Darsan Singh told P.W. 1 that the owner had already left for Dhanbad in a car and they should go to Dhanbad with the truck as there was a proposal for the disposal of the truck. On that false representation P.W. 1 accompanied Darsan Singh with the three accused persons and Baya Munda.
At Dhanbad P.W. 1 remained in charge of the truck and the other persons were busy in making several purchases like shoes, camera and cycle parts. On April 26, 1961 all other persons left Dhanbad and only Darsan Singh and P.W. 1 remained behind. After persistent inquiry P.W. 1 was told by Darsan Singh that the owner might have gone to Chirakunda which is about 20 to 25 miles from Dhanbad. So both of them went to Chirakunda in the truck. There Darsan Singh replied to P. W.'s query regarding the whereabouts of the owner that the owner was likely to have been murdered by the driver of the car or that the death might have taken place by accident. Darsan Singh further suggested that he would dispose of the truck for Rs. 8000/- out of which he would give Rs. 2000/- to P.W. 1 and the latter was not to worry as he would get a license for him and provide him with a suitable service.
The statements and conduct of Darsan Singh aroused strong suspicion in the mind of P.W. 1 who suspected some foul play. When Darsan Singh was busy in negotiation for the disposal of the truck with another Sikh gentleman, P.W. 1, drove the truck to Dhanbad and contacted the police at the police station for help. The police directed him to drop a letter to the owner in order to know his whereabouts. While P.W. 1 was going to post the letter he found Darsan Singh who threatened to kill him if he would disclose his identity. Darsan Singh suggested to him that he should describe him as Kripal Singh which was a fictitious name. P.W. 1 sent two letters (Exts. 1 and 2, dated 26-4-1961) to Baburam (P.W. 10) the driver of the other truck. In the police station of Dhanbad P.W. 1 waited till May 5, 1951 when P.W. 10 arrived and with him he returned to Barbil. On May 6, 1961 he made a Station Diary (Ext. 26) at Barbil and the officer-in-charge (P.W. 25) drew up a F.I.R. on his own information (Ext. 27). Abdul Hanan (accused No. 1) was arrested on May 8, 1961 and he gave discovery of the place where Balbir Singh was killed and also of the Mooram stack where the head of the deceased had been concealed.
It transpired on investigation that the three accused persons with the two absconding pe
