Back
2010 Supreme(UK) 64
2010 (1) N.C.C. 883
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.C. Kandpal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nirmal Yadav
Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 2004
DHURAT SINGH @ RAJU – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL – Respondent
Decided on : 25.02.2010
For the Appellant : Mr. Vinod Sharma, learned counsel
For the Respondent: Mr. S.S. Adhikari, learned AGA
Headnote:Confession — Retracted confession — Basing conviction on — Propriety of — A voluntary and true confession made by an accused, though it may be subsequently retracted by him — Can be taken into consideration against a co-accused by virtue of Section 30 of Evidence Act — But as a matter of prudence and practice, court should not act upon it to base a conviction of accused without full and strong corroboration in material particulars both as to the crime and as to his connection with the crime — Amount of credibility to be attached to a retracted confesison would depend upon circumstances of each particular case. (Paras 23, 24, 25, 26, 27)
laLohdfr & okil dh xbZ laLohdfr ds vk/kkj ij nks"kflf) dk vkSfpR; & ,d lR; o LoNk ls dh laLohdfr & Hkys gh ckn esa og okil ys yh xbZ gks lgvfHk;qDr ds fo#) lk{; vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 30 ds vUrxZr fopkj.kh; gS & fdUrq izKk o izSfDVl ds rkSj ij U;k;ky; dks mlds vk/kkj rc rd nks"kflf) ugha djuh pkfg;s tc rd lkjoku rF;ksa dh vijk/k ds fo"k; esa o vijk/k ls mlds lEcU/k esa iw.kZ :i ls lEiqf"V uk gks tk; & okil yh xbZ laLohdfr dh fo'oluh;rk izR;sd dsl dh ifjfLFkfr;ksa ij fuHkZj djsxhA ¼izLrj 23] 24] 25] 26] 27½
(Per : Hon’ble Nirmal Yadav, J.)
Mr. Vinod Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
2. Mr. S.S. Adhikari, learned AGA for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent.
3. Dhurat Singh appellant was sent for trial for offence under section 302 IPC for the murder of his uncle Kaur Singh, resident of Khalsi. He was convicted for the above offence and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment thereof to further undergo imprisonment for 6 months.
4. On 23.11.2001 Kashmiri Devi, daughter of Kaur Singh (deceased) visited her father’s house and found his father’s cap and a lot of blood in the courtyard. Locks of the both rooms were lying open. She went to Dilchand PW 1 and narrated the above facts. Dilchand immediately accompanied her to the house of Kaur Singh. With the help of a torch they entered into one of the rooms and found dead body of Kaur Singh lying there. Since it was night time complainant Dilchand approached Patwari of Bardogi area on the next day and submitted written application (Exhibit Ka.1). On the basis of written application, First Information Report (Exhibit Ka.4) was registered on 24.11.2001. Patwari reached the spot and conducted spot inspection and prepared Panchayatnama (Exhibit Ka.6). He also prepared site plan and sent the dead body for the postmortem examination. The postmortem of the deceased was conducted on 26.11.2001 at 12.45 p.m. by Dr. Rajesh Shah. During the investigation, Investigating Officer took into possession one iron axe from the spot and recorded statements of witnesses.
5. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of some other witnesses on 1st and 2nd December 2001. The accused was arrested on 02.12.2001 and his statement was also recorded. The blood-stained pant worn by accused was taken into possession vide memo Exhibit Ka.11. The accused was taken to Uttarkashi on 03.12.2001. He was produced before Judicial Magistrate on 4.12.2001 for getting his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. However, it was received by PW10-Ravindra Maithani on 5.12.2001.
6. On completion of investigation, the accused was charged under section 302 IPC and challan was presented in the court to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7. In order to prove its case prosecution has produced as many as 10 witnesses.
8. The testimony of PW1 – Dilchand is formal in nature. According to PW1, daughter of Kaur Singh (deceased) Kashmiri Devi came to his house and told him that his father was missing. He and Kashmiri Devi went to the house of Kaur Singh and found dead body of Kaur Singh lying in a room and thereafter he informed the Patwari. He joined investigation and identified the dead body at the time of preparing panchayatnama. He admitted that he had not mentioned the name of any accused in the first information report.
9. PW2 – Surat Singh proved the presence of Dhurat Singh in the village about 10-12 days prior to the date of occurrence. According to Dhurat Singh, he had come to village after a period 8-9 years. Even PW3 – Kashmiri had not witnessed the occurrence and had visited her father’s house only after occurrence. PW5 – Kamla Devi submitted that her husband Kaur Singh was of good character, he never used to take liquor nor he had illicit relations with any woman, as such, her statement was of no help to the prosecution. Prosecution does not find any support from the statement of PW6 – Udma Devi, Daughter-in-law of the deceased. PW7 – Dhyan Singh is the son of deceased. He denied Dhurat Singh having met him at Firozpur. Later on, he was declared hostile and nothing useful could be elicited from his statement. Even statement of Trippan Singh, PW8, is of no help to the prosecution.
10. Dr. Rajesh Shah – PW4, prepared the postmortem report and found the following ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased:
i) 14 x 3 cm incised wound 5 cm above the left eye-brow obliquely placed. Brain matter was coming out from the inquiry and
