Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
B. K. Chaturvedi, J.
SHOBHA PARAM KACHHI - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - Respondents
Criminal Appeal 367 Of 1957
Decided On : 10/06/1958
CRIMINAL LAW - DAOCITY - EVIDENCE - RECOVERY OF STOLEN PROPERTY - PRESUMPTION UNDER SECTION 114, EVIDENCE ACT - CONVICTION FOR DAOCITY OR RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY OR THEFT.
Fact of the Case:
Six appellants were convicted of dacoity and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment each. The dacoity was alleged to have been committed on the night of 11-10-1956 at the house of Bahrain (P. W. 1) at village Kanora in which cash, silver and gold ornaments were taken away.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the confessions of the appellants were made under duress and were not admissible in evidence. The court also found that the discoveries of stolen property at the instance of the appellants, except appellant Bhagirath s/o Dallu, were from open places and were not reliable. However, the court found that the discovery of stolen property at the instance of appellant Bhagirath s/o Dallu was from his house and was sufficient to connect him with the crime.
Issues: 1. Whether the confessions of the appellants were admissible in evidence. 2. Whether the discoveries of stolen property at the instance of the appellants were reliable. 3. Whether the appellants could be convicted of dacoity or receiving stolen property or theft.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the confessions of the appellants were made under duress and were not admissible in evidence. The court relied on the fact that the confessions were made two days after the appellants' arrest and four days after their interrogation and informal arrest. The court also relied on the testimony of two witnesses who deposed that the appellants were tortured by the police. 2. The court held that the discoveries of stolen property at the instance of the appellants, except appellant Bhagirath s/o Dallu, were from open places and were not reliable. The court relied on the fact that the two witnesses to the seizure-memos and memoranda did not depose the actual words of the appellants, and the uniformity in recital in various memoranda was itself suspicious. 3. The court held that appellant Bhagirath s/o Dallu could be convicted of theft under Section 411, Indian Penal Code, but not of dacoity or receiving stolen property. The court relied on the fact that there was no evidence of identification of appellant Bhagirath s/o Dallu, or of his being seen near the place at the time of dacoity, or of joining a gang. The court also relied on the fact that the only evidence against appellant Bhagirath s/o Dallu was the recovery of stolen property from his possession.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeals of appellants Shobha, Halkai, Girdhari, Bhagirath s/o Param and Punna alias Puran Lodhi, set aside their conviction and the sentences passed on them and ordered that they be acquitted in this case. The court allowed the appeal of appellant Bhagirath s/o Dallu to the extent that it altered his conviction from one under Section 395 to that under Section 411, Indian Penal Code, and reduced the sentence to two years' rigorous imprisonment.
( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred by six appellants: (1) Shobha s/o Parana, (2)Halkai s/o Bhure, (3) Bhagirath s/o Dallu (4) Girdhari s/o Nanhe, (5) Bhagirath s/o pram and (6) Punna alias Puran Lodhi, against their conviction under Section 395, indian Penal Code, and their sentences to five years' rigorous imprisonment each, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh. This appeal arises from Sessions Trial no. 66 of 1957.
( 2 ) THE dacoity is alleged to have been committed by these six appellants on the night of 11-10-1956 at the house of Bahrain {p. W. 1) at village Kanora in which cash, silver and gold ornaments were taken away. A report of the occurrence (Ex. P-1) was lodged on 12-10-1956. But it was in connection with investigation of another dacoity that took place on 17-12-1956 at the taparias for hutments) on the suburbs of village Piparia-Mishar that the police officers investigated this offence also and found that the dacoits were from village Kabirpur. On 22-12-1956 the appellants are said to have made some discoveries and on 2412-1956 they were arrested and produced before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, hatta, for recording their confessions. The said confessions were recorded on 2612-1956. The evidence about the confessions and the discoveries is the same as adduced in Criminal Appeal No. 366 of 1957 (Bhagirath v. The State of M. P.)decided by me on 12-9-1958, arising out of Sessions Trial No. 65 of 1957, ( 3 ) THE two witnesses, Ramcharan (P. W. 17) and Babulal (P. W. 19) deposed that every villager suspected of this dacoity was beaten by the Sub-Inspector of Police: that accused Mullu was made naked and asked to roam about in that condition; and that accused Budha was so much beaten that he passed stools.
( 4 ) SO far as the confessions are concerned, they were made by the appellants two days after their arrest and four days after their interrogation and their informal arrest, if I may say so. I held in the other dacoity case, referred to above, that where once the existence of threat, assault, beating or improper inducement has been established, there is a presumption of its continuance, and the prosecution has to prove that the impression caused by the original inducement, beating, assault or threat was fully removed when the prisoner made the confession. In the instant case, the impression created in the mind of the prisoners (appellants) by the torture of fear had not been removed in the short interval which elapsed between the beating given by the Sub-Inspector and the recording of the confession. I, therefore, discard the confessions altogether.
( 5 ) THE Sub-Inspector ought to have known that law does not tolerate the achievement of a lawful purpose by unlawful means. Years ago, Niyogi J. pointed out in Dinanath v. The Crown, ILR (1940) Nag. 232 at p. 241: (AIR 1940 Nag 186 at p. 191) that the police, in the strenuous task of investigation, do, in exceptional cases, succumb to the momentary temptation of employing coercive methods, and that this may well be set down to innate human frailty, but it must not be overlooked that it is to restrain such impulses that several sections of the Indian penal Code came to be enacted. The police officers will be well-advised while engaged in the detection of crimes not to subordi- nate their detective skill to the alluring but treacherous means of torturing the suspects to extract clues to guide their course of investigation.
( 6 ) AFTER discarding the confessions' what remains in the case is the discovery of the stolen property at the alleged instance of various appellants. The two witnesses, Ramcharan (P. W. 17) and Babulal (P. W. 19), to the seizure-memos and to the memoranda have not deposed the actual words of the appellants, and the uniformity in recital in various memoranda (Exhs. P-10, 14, 15, 17. 19, 20, 22, 24, 26, 29 and 31) is itself suspicious. The witnesses clearly deposed that appellant Bhagirath s/o Param was the first to be interro
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
