IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Mukerji and Chowdhry, JJ.
DHOOM SINGH - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondents
Criminal Appeal 677 Of 1956 and Referred No. 52 of 1956
Decided On : 10/10/1956
CORPUS DELICTI - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 302, INDIAN PENAL CODE - The judgment discusses the circumstantial evidence, the judicial and extra-judicial confessions of the appellant, and the alleged recovery of the dead body at the instance of the appellant. The court found that the evidence was not reliable due to inconsistencies, lack of corroboration, and the appellant being subjected to third-degree methods. The court also found that there was no proof of corpus delicti in the sense that there was no proof that the death was caused by human agency.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Dhoom Singh, was convicted for the murder of a 10-year-old boy, Ranbir Singh, and sentenced to death. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, including the alleged recovery of the dead body at the instance of the appellant and his confessions. The appellant alleged that he was subjected to third-degree methods by the police.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence, including the recovery of the dead body and the confessions, was not reliable due to inconsistencies, lack of corroboration, and the appellant being subjected to third-degree methods. The court also found that there was no proof of corpus delicti in the sense that there was no proof that the death was caused by human agency.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of the evidence, including the recovery of the dead body and the confessions, and the proof of corpus delicti.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the unreliability of the evidence, the inconsistencies in witness testimonies, lack of corroboration, and the appellant's allegations of being subjected to third-degree methods by the police. The court also found that there was no proof of corpus delicti in the sense that there was no proof that the death was caused by human agency.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 302, Indian Penal Code, were set aside, and he was acquitted. The reference for confirmation of his sentence of death was rejected. The appellant was to be set at liberty forthwith.
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by one Dhoom Singh, aged 20 years, who has been convicted by the learned additional sessions Judge of Muzaffarnagar under Section 302, I. P. C. , for the murder of a 10 years old boy Ranbir singh and sentenced to death. The leference under Section 374, Criminal procedure Code, for confirmation of the sentence is also before us.
( 2 ) TWO brothers Baljit P. W. 1 and Chatra lived in separate houses in village Pachenda. The appellant is a son of Chatru. The deceased Ranbir and a 5 years old girl Ranbiri were Baljits children by a concubine Gangadevi by name. She had deserted him 2 or 3 years previously. Baljit owned 7 bighas of cultivatory land, two houses and 3 heads of cattle.
( 3 ) THE prosecution case is that Baljit fell seriously ill about a fortnight before the occurrence so that his children had to find for their food from house to house. So after about a week of illness he called the appellant and entrusted to him the care of his children and property in case he died, and the appellant began to look after them.
( 4 ) THE deceased and the appellant used to go together for bringing fodder. They did so on sunday, September 18, 1955, also but the appellant alone returned at about 2 P. M. Baljit inquired where Ranbir was. The appellant replied that Ranbir had not gone with him. Baijit asked the appellant to go and search for Ranbir. The appellant went away but again came back alone in the evening. Being too ill to go out himself, Baljit again asked the appellant on Monday, september 19, to make a search for the missing boy, but the appellant again came back in the evening and stated that he could not find the boy anywhere.
( 5 ) ON Tuesday, September 20, Baljit went in the company of Raghubir P. W. 9 and one Nain singh to the police station of Kotwali in Muzaffarnagar, only a couple of miles away, and lodged there a report about the disappearance of the boy In the following words:
"my son Ranbir Singh aged 9-10 years of lean body and fair complexion having eyes of average size and an old cut mark of gandasa on the right hand near the wrist, height about 4 feet, who is putting on knicker having yellow and green stripes and shirt of yellow gabroon, and whose head and feet are bare, is missing since 18th September, 1955, at about 10 in the day from the village of Pachenda Kalan. A search may be made. "
( 6 ) THE village Mukhia Ramji Lal P. W. 2 had gone to the neighbouring village Ratheri, and on his return from there in the forenoon of Tuesday, September 20, he learnt that Baljits son Ranbir was missing. In the afternoon he was told by two of his fellow villagers Sukhbir Singh P. W. 7 and Raghubir P. W. 9 that, as the former was returning from Ratheri and the latter from his cultivation, they had seen the appellant and the deceased going together towards the fields at about noon on Sunday, September 18. The three of them then went and conveyed the information to Baljit.
( 7 ) THE following day, Wednesday September 21, the Mukhia called the appellant at about 10 a. m. , and, on being interrogated, the appellant confessed to having murdered Ranbir but said nothing about the disposal of the dead body.
( 8 ) RAM Phal Tyagi P. W. 12, second officer at Police Station Kotwali Muzaffarnagar, is the officer who investigated the case. He reached Pachenda at 10. 30 A. M. on Thursday, September 28, and arrested the appellant at 7 oclock the same evening. The appellant was interrogated and later in the evening a dead body, identified by Baljit and others as that of Ranbir, was discovered at the Instance of the appellant from the sugar-cane field of one Hamid in village Ratheri, about a mile from Pachenda. A recovery memo and then an inquest report were drawn up by the investigating officer in the presence of Ramji Lal P. W. 2, balla P. W. 3, Chatar Singh P. W. 4, Dilay Ram P. W. 5 and Raghubir P. W. 8, all residents of pachenda except Diley Ram who was Mukhia of Mustafabad, a neighbouring village. The inves
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.