Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Roy and Sahai, JJ.
STATE - Appellant
Versus
FATEH BAHADUR - Respondents
Govt. Crl. Appeal 1100 Of 1954
Decided On : 04/18/1957
CRIMINAL LAW - MURDER - POISONING - EVIDENCE - CONFESSION - RECORDING OF CONFESSION - DUTY OF MAGISTRATE - MEDICAL EVIDENCE - ANALYSIS OF VISCERA - QUANTITATIVE TEST - NECESSITY - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - APPRECIATION - POLICE DIARIES - USE BY COURT - SECTION 172(2), CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that the respondents conspired to murder Sudarshan Puri by administering a poisonous pera to him. Fateh Bahadur, a 12-year-old boy, was charged with administering the pera, while the other four respondents were charged with abetment and conspiracy. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, including the testimony of witnesses who claimed to have seen Fateh Bahadur giving the pera to Sudarshan Puri, and the discovery of arsenic in the viscera of Sudarshan Puri and in some phials recovered from the house of Sooraj Prakash, one of the respondents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence against the respondents was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they had conspired to murder Sudarshan Puri. The court held that the confession of Fateh Bahadur was inadmissible because it was not recorded in accordance with the law and was not voluntary. The court also found that the medical evidence was insufficient to prove that Sudarshan Puri died from arsenic poisoning, as the chemical analysis of the viscera did not disclose a quantitative test. The court further found that the circumstantial evidence was unreliable and did not establish the guilt of the respondents.
Issues: 1. Whether the confession of Fateh Bahadur was admissible in evidence. 2. Whether the medical evidence was sufficient to prove that Sudarshan Puri died from arsenic poisoning. 3. Whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to establish the guilt of the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A confession is not admissible in evidence unless it is recorded in accordance with the law and is voluntary. In the present case, the confession of Fateh Bahadur was not recorded in accordance with the law, as the Magistrate did not warn him that his statement could be used against him and did not give him time to think over the consequences of making a confession. The confession was also not voluntary, as Fateh Bahadur was in police custody at the time and was likely to have been coerced into making the statement. 2. Medical evidence is sufficient to prove that a person died from poisoning only if a quantitative test is conducted to determine the amount of poison in the body. In the present case, the chemical analysis of the viscera of Sudarshan Puri did not disclose a quantitative test, and therefore the medical evidence was insufficient to prove that he died from arsenic poisoning. 3. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to establish the guilt of an accused person only if it is strong and convincing. In the present case, the circumstantial evidence was weak and unreliable, and did not establish the guilt of the respondents beyond a reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the State's appeal and acquitted the respondents.
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal on behalf of the State against an order of acquittal of the respondents who are five in number. Fateh Bahadur respondent No. 1 is a boy aged twelve years. He is an orphan and he lives with his uncle Rashik Behari Lal respondent No. 4, Sooraj Prakash respondent No. 3 belongs to the same caste as these two respondents and he is an amateur Homoepathic practitioner in village Manauna where the respondents reside. Respondent No. 2 is Umrai Gir and respondent no. 5 is Smt. Ram Murti the wife of Umrai Gir.
( 2 ) FATEH Bahadur was charged for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 328, I. P. C. , in that on the 16th of April, 1953, at about 11 a. m. he committed the murder of Sudarshan Puri by administering a poisonous pera to him knowing that it contained arsenic poison as a result of which Sudarshan Puri died on the same date by about 7 in the evening. The other four respondents were charged for the abetment of the offences under Sections 302 and 328, I. P. C. These four were further charged for conspiracy under Section 120-B of the Code read with section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
( 3 ) THE facts on which the case for the prosecution had been founded may be briefly stated. About fifty years ago one Baba Kedar Gir of village Manauna had made Baldeo Puri his chela and had given him the name of Baba Ram Gir. The gaddi of Baba Kedar Gir had devolved on Baba Ram gir. According to the tradition of that gaddi the incumbent of the gaddi has to observe celibacy and has to remain a bachelor; and it is enjoined that in the event of his marriage, he must appoint a chela who has to remain a bachelor during the lifetime of his gum. The above tradition was not strictly followed, Baba Ram Gir had married about ten or twelve years after he had succeeded to the gaddi. About a year after his marriage he had appointed umrai Gir respondent who was then about ten or twelve years of age as his chela Consequent upon soldi appointment Umrai Gir renounced his natural parents and treated his guru in somewhat the same fashion as an adopted son treats his adoptive father. After about 5 or 6 years of such appointment Umrai Gir fell into evil company. He wss ultimately involved in a dacoity case and was prosecuted, convicted and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment. He served out his sentence about fifteen years ago and on his return from jail he lived with Baba ram Gir for about live years. Ram Gir wanted to bring him to proper course of conduct and to mend his ways, but he failed in his attempt find Umrai Gir did not improve himself. Ram Gir had therefore to revoke his chelaship some time about ten years back. Since then Umrai Gir had been living in the Rath-Khana of Baba Ram Gir which is close to the residential house of the latter. About eight or nine years ago Umrai Gir married Smt. Ram Murti respondent. Baba Ram Gir then made one Randhir Gir aged about seven or eight years as his chela, but this new chela could not live with him for more than two or three years because of the alleged high handedness of Umrai Gir. Baba Ram Gir was then on the lookout for another chela and on the 14th of May, 1952, he formally initiated his daughters son Sudarshan Puri, who was then about nine or ten years of age, as his chela. It is said that Umrai Gir was not happy over the prospect of Sudarshan Puri being made chela and being finally installed on the gaddi. Not-withstanding the opposition of Umrai Gir, sudar-shan Puri was made the Chela and was given the name of Bhagwan Gir. Baba Ram Gir on account of the association of Umrai Gir with him for a number of years, however, took kindly to him and instead of turning him out from his house, he allowed him to live in his Rath-Khana which was close to his residential house. The rela- tions between the two apparently continued to be cordial. It is, however, suggested that Sudarshan Puri was not looked upon by Umrai Gir with favour and he had to all intents and purposes become an eye
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
