1956 Supreme(SC) 70

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
27th September 1956
BHAGWATI, IMAM, S.K. DAS AND GOVINDA MENON, JJ.
Balbir Singh, Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 1956.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Jai Gopal Sethi, Senior Advocate, (Mr. Naunit Lal, Advocate with him), for Appellant; Mr. N. S. Bindra Senior Advocate (Mr. T. M. Sen, Advocate for Mr. P. G. Gokhale, Advocate with him) for Respondent.

Headnote:Section 423-Appeal from acquittal-Principle.

       Held: It is now well settled that though the High Court has full power to review the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is founded, it is equally well settled that the presumption of the accused person is further reinforced by his acquittal by the trial Court and the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses must be given proper weight and consideration; and the slowness of an appellate Court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing witnesses must also be kept in mind, and there must be substantial and compelling reasons for the appellate Court to come to a conclusion different from that of the trial Judge. - Sections 24, 30-Co-accused-Confession by one how far can be used against the other-Evidentiary value of confessions-Corroboration required.

       Held: (1) "So far as the confessional statement of Jagir Singh is Concerned, it may be taken into consideration against the appellant if it fulfils the conditions laid down in section 30 of the Evidence Act. One of the conditions is that the confession must implicate the maker substantially to the same extent as the other accused person against whom it is sought to be taken into consideration. On reading Jagir Singhs confession as a whole; it appears that he was really trying to throw the main blame on the appellant, though he admitted that he entered into the house of Mst. Chinti brought out a kirpan lying there, and took some silver ornaments iron: that house. He denied that he had anything to do with the murder of Mst. Chinti or, even the murder of the two boys; he more or less tided to make out that he was an unwilling spectator of the crime committed by the appellant. In these circumstances, the utmost that can be submitted on behalf of the appellant is that the confession of Jagir Singh should not be used at all against the appellant. We have pointed out that some of the differences are immaterial some an due to the desire of Jagir Singh to throw the blame on the appellant a circumstance of which the benefit has been given to the appellant, and some other differences are clearly resolved by other evidence on the record. We do not think that in these circumstances the confessional statements can be condemned out of hand or in limine as untrue." (per S.K. Das J.)

       (2) The rule of prudence does not require that each and every cir. cumstance mentioned in the confession With regard to the participation of the accused person in the crime must be separately and independently corroborated, nor is it essential that the corroboration must come from facts and circumstances discovered after the confession Was made.

       If the rule required that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confessional statement must be separately and independently corroborated then the rule would be meaningless inasmuch as the independent evidence itself would afford sufficient basis for conviction and it would be unnecessary to call the confession in aid. - Section 27-Evidentiary value.

       The accused was hauled up by the police officer in connection with the murder of woman. He then made a statement that he had buried the earrings of the deceased near a papal tree and they were recovered from a place pointed out by him in the confession made to a Magistrate the accused, however, did not say that he retained possession of the earrings. The husband of the deceased had gone to another village a fortnight before her murder. He gave evidence that he saw the deceased wearing those earrings three or four days before his departure. The goldsmith also gave evidence that he made the earrings for her. Still the Session Judge did not accept the evidence of recovery as showing the connection of accused with the crime on the ground that there was no evidence to show that the deceased was wearing them at the time when the crime was committed. He drew a distinction between possession and knowledge and held that the accused merely knew where the earrings were concealed but did not possess them.

       Held: The distinction drawn by the Sessions Judge was not justified by the evidence on the record and the reasons given by him for not accepting the evidence of recovery were fantastic. The statement of the accused that he had buried the eating was admissible in evidence under S. 27 and the High Court was right in holding that the recovery was a circumstance which connected the accused with the crime.