The court's decision highlights the importance of reliable and corroborated evidence in criminal cases, and the inadmissibility of confessions that are not made voluntarily or are not corroborated by other evidence.

( 1 ) THE present appeal is directed against the order of conviction and sentence dated 16-6-80 recorded by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital, in S. T. No. 296 of 1979, the learned trial Court found the two appellants guilty for an offence under Sections 302/34, I. P. C. and sentenced them to life imprisonment. On presentation of the appeal the appellants were released on bail by this Court by an order dated 19-6-80.

( 2 ) THE case was initiated when Case Crime No. 32 of 1979 under Section 302, I. P. C. was lodged through an F. I. R. dated 2-5-79. The incident alleged in the F. I. R. took place at village Kusumkhera, police station Haldwani, district Nainital, at about 7. 00 p. m. The report was made same night at 12. 15 and in the F. I. R. the distance of the place of the occurrence was shown as 7 kilo meters from the police station. The two appellants were named in the F. I. R. It was stated in the F. I. R. that Kanti Ballabh, the son of the complainant, had some enmity with the appellant Ganga Singh since some time past. Kanti Ballabh was a student in Gandhi Inter College, Haldwani, and so was Ganga Singh, Rivalry developed in the school itself. On the date of the incident, Kanti Ballabh had gone to Haldwani Bazar on a cycle for delivering milk. Normally he used to go by that time and used to come back by 6. 00 p. m. When he did not return within the usual time his father along with one Keshav Dutt, Up-Sabhapati of the Panchayat, came out in search of Kanti Ballabh. When they reached near Kusum Khera, they saw Kanti Ballabh being assaulted by Ganga Singh and his brother Kheem Singh with stones. Kanti Ballabh was found in a pool of blood on the ground. The complainant and Keshav Dutt raised alarm. Kesher Singh and Laxhmi Dutt of Kushumkhera reached the spot. These two persons also saw the assault on Kanti Ballabh by Ganga Singh and Kheem Singh by means of stone. Thereafter Ganga Singh and Kheea Singh fled away. Kanti Ballabh was found dead. The cycle was standing near by with the milk cans. This report was written by Laxmi Dutt and was signed by Narain Dutt. He was asked at the time of the lodging the F. I. R. as to when the incident had happened, the time was given as 7. 00 p. m. He was asked as to why there was a delay in lodging the F. I. R. It was stated that conveyance was not available and arrangements were to be made for keeping watch on the dead body and that had caused the delay.

( 3 ) THE Investigating Officer proceeded to the spot, took charge of the cycle and the case, made a panchayatnama, sent the deadbody for post mortem examination, visited the spot and made a site plan, seized the blood-stained earth, clothes and stones and went to the house of the accused Ganga Singh and arrested him. A confession was allegedly made before him by Ganga and on his further question Ganga indicated to him the place where his own clothes were concealed and he took them out and stated that these were the clothes he was wearing at the time of the incident. The clothes allegedly bore blood marks. The blood-stained articles were sent for chemical examination and the Chemical Examiner confirmed presence of blood thereon. Witnesses were examined and charge sheet was submitted and the accused persons were committed to the Court of Session.

( 4 ) TO prove the case, the prosecution had examined 12 witnesses. P. W. 1 was Keshav Dutt. According to the F. I. R. this witness had accompanied the complainant to search out Kanti Ballabh. This witness had stated in Court that on the relevant date, at about 8. 30 p. m. the complainant had called him and he informed him that his son had not come back and on his request he went to search Kantiballabh along with Narain. When they reached near the field of Brij Mohan they found the deadbody of Kanti Ballabh in a pool of blood on the kaccha road. The witness stated that he did not see the assault or the assailants. He denied to have made any statement to police under Section 161, Cr. P. C.