1958 Supreme(All) 96

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R. N. Gurtu and A. N. Mulla, JJ.
RAM SINGH - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
Capital Sentence Ref. 30 Of 1957
Decided On : 05/13/1958

Headnote:

CRIMINAL LAW - CONFESSION - ADMISSIBILITY - STATEMENT RECORDED BY MAGISTRATE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 164, CR. P. C. - NOT ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE - EVIDENCE ACT (I OF 1872), SECTION 25 - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (V OF 1898), SECTIONS 164, 364.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted under Section 302, P. Code by the Additional Sessions Judge, Unnao, and sentenced to death. The prosecution story was that the deceased and the accused persons were members of a gang of opium and Ganja smugglers and they occasionally looted motor trucks and lorries in which these articles were transported. The deceased possessed a gun and he also ran a flour mill in partnership with Mahesh Prasad. This flour mill was at Ghatampur, but for some reasons it had closed down since about two years before the incident. In the course of their transactions Shankeri deceased had become indebted to Mahesh Prasad upto Rs. 500/- and Mahesh Prasad frequently demanded his money. Mahesh prasad suggested to Shankeri that he should sell his gun and pay up the amount. He even suggested that a false report about the theft of the gun might be lodged and some money might be paid to Sri Sultan Ahmed, station officer, Bara Sagwar, who would not investigate the matter. It was mentioned that according to the prosecution case Sri Sultan Ahmed was in league with the gang of Mahesh Prasad and he used to receive frequent payments from the members of this gang. There was a rival gang led by Ram Kumar and his brother Lallan and the relations between the two gangs were highly strained. Shankeri deceased instead of following the advice given by Mahesh Prasad contacted Ram Kumar, who gave him some money and Shankeri paid back the debt of Mahesh Prasad. This created a suspicion in the mind of Mahesh Prasad that Shankeri had now joined Ram. Kumars gang and was thus a source of potential danger. It was, therefore, decided by Mahesh Prasad and the other members of bis group to kill Shanker. Some 10 or 11 days before the incident the appellant and Phunnar had some talk with Shankeri in which some threats were extended. The deceased retaliated that he would expose Mahesh prasad and Phunnar in the matter of a bomb explosion case. It so appears that some time before the incident Ram Kumar and his brother Lallan were injured in a bomb explosion. This perhaps made Mahesh Prasad find his companions all the more determined to kill Shanker.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the statement made by the appellant before Sri N. B. Singh, Additional S. D. M. , Unnao, on the 23rd of October, 1956, was not admissible in evidence against him and, therefore must be discarded from consideration. It was a confession which was not recorded according to the provisions of law and, therefore, Sri N, B. Singh, the Magistrate, cannot be permitted to depose about it. It was also a statement which was extorted by unfair means. Lastly we may observe that even if Ex. P 2 had been admissible in evidence and free from other infirmities we would not have departed from the well established rule of prudence namely that an accused should not be convicted on the basis of a retracted confusion alone, unless there is some corroborative evidence. There is nothing on the record to corroborate Ex. P2, except a mass of false and fabricated evidence.

Issues: 1. Whether the statement made by the appellant before Sri N. B. Singh, Additional S. D. M. , Unnao, on the 23rd of October, 1956, was admissible in evidence against him? 2. Whether the statement was a confession or an admission?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. A confession is an acknowledgment in express words by the accused in a criminal case, of the truth of the guilty act charged or some essential part of it. An admission is a statement by the accused, direct or implied, of facts pertinent to the issue, and tending. in connection with proof of other facts, to prove his guilt, but of itself is insufficient to authorise a conviction. 2. The statement of the appellant was a confession and not an admission, as it directly admitted guilt and contained no exculpatory part. 3. The statement was not admissible in evidence as it was not recorded in accordance with the provisions of Section 164 Cr. P. C. and the Magistrate did not administer any caution to the appellant before recording the statement.

Final Decision: The court set aside the order of conviction passed against the appellant and acquitted him.