1961 (3) TMI 89 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the evidence given by a Magistrate on the basis of the verification proceedings conducted by him is relevant evidence though he could not speak of statements made by the accused or a witness recorded by him in contravention of s. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure? Held that - The evidence of the Magistrate, excluding that part pertaining to the statements made to him by Suraj Bhan, was relevant evidence in the case. The High Court considered, and in our view rightly that there was no reason to disbelieve the evidence of Suraj Bhan when he identified Deep Chand at the time of abduction. Suraj Bhan knew the accused before and he also knew his stature and voice. Suraj Bhan was in the company of Deep Chand from the time of his abduction till he was finally released. When Suraj Bhan, in the circumstances, stated that he identified Deep Chand, there is no valid reason to reject his evidence. In the circumstances, the High Court was quite justified in setting aside the order of acquittal under s. 458, Indian Penal Code, and convicting him for the offence under s. 452 there of. The Sessions Judge held that the accused was guilty of a grave and heinous crime and we are surprised that he should have sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under s. 347, 2 years under s. 365 and 3 1/2 years under s. 386, Indian Penal Code, and direct the sentences to run concurrently. When the Sessions Judge gave such a disproportionately lenient sentences, it was the duty of the High Court to rectify such an obvious error. In our view, the learned Judges of the High Court rightly enhanced the sentence imposed on the appellant. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of Suraj Bhan's statement before the Magistrate.
2. Privilege claimed by District Magistrate Gajender Singh.
3. Setting aside the acquittal under Section 458 IPC and convicting under Section 452 IPC.
4. Enhancement of the sentence by the High Court.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Admissibility of Suraj Bhan's Statement Before the Magistrate:
The appellant's counsel argued that the High Court erred in relying on Suraj Bhan's statement made before the Magistrate during verification proceedings, which was not recorded in compliance with Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The court noted that Section 164 CrPC prescribes the procedure for recording statements during investigation or before trial, while Section 9 of the Evidence Act deals with facts establishing identity. The court held that while the Magistrate's evidence describing the house of Deep Chand was relevant under Section 9 of the Evidence Act, any statements made by Suraj Bhan not recorded in compliance with Section 164 CrPC would be inadmissible. However, even excluding the Magistrate's evidence, other evidence in the case sufficiently corroborated Suraj Bhan's identification of Deep Chand's house.

2. Privilege Claimed by District Magistrate Gajender Singh:
The appellant contended that the High Court erred in upholding the privilege claimed by District Magistrate Gajender Singh, which prevented the defense from eliciting answers that could establish Suraj Bhan's previous statements as truthful. The court noted that the High Court did not rely on Gajender Singh's evidence to explain Suraj Bhan's inconsistent versions. Instead, the High Court provided convincing reasons for Suraj Bhan's and his family's reluctance to disclose the true version immediately. Additionally, the question of privilege was not raised before the High Court, and thus, the objection was rejected.

3. Setting Aside the Acquittal Under Section 458 IPC and Convicting Under Section 452 IPC:
The appellant argued that the High Court erred in setting aside the acquittal under Section 458 IPC and convicting him under Section 452 IPC without sufficient and compelling reasons. The court held that the High Court was justified in accepting Suraj Bhan's identification of Deep Chand at the time of abduction. Suraj Bhan knew Deep Chand before and recognized his stature and voice. Given the circumstances, the High Court rightly disbelieved the Sessions Judge's findings and convicted the appellant under Section 452 IPC.

4. Enhancement of the Sentence by the High Court:
The appellant's counsel argued that the High Court was not justified in enhancing the sentence imposed by the Sessions Judge. The court noted that the Sessions Judge had awarded disproportionately lenient sentences despite recognizing the gravity of the crime. The High Court, therefore, rightly enhanced the sentences to reflect the severity of the offenses committed by the appellant.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, finding no exceptional circumstances to depart from the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The appeal was dismissed, and the enhanced sentences imposed by the High Court were affirmed.