1952 (3) TMI 37 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Use of confession of an accused against a co-accused.
2. Previous association between the appellant and the co-accused.
3. Appellant's presence and movements on the day of the murder.
4. Disposal of the body.
5. Corroboration of accomplice testimony.
6. Motive for the crime.
7. Evidence of clothing (coat and safa) associated with the crime.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Use of Confession of an Accused Against a Co-Accused:
The court examined the extent to which a confession by an accused can be used against a co-accused. It was noted that such a confession is not evidence in the ordinary sense and is considered a very weak type of evidence. It cannot form the foundation of a conviction but can only be used to support other evidence. The court emphasized that the confession should be used to "lend assurance to other evidence against a co-accused" and should not be used to fill in missing gaps or to corroborate an accomplice unless there is independent evidence implicating the accused.

2. Previous Association Between the Appellant and the Co-Accused:
The court found that the evidence of previous association between the appellant and Gurubachan Singh was weak and unreliable. The testimony of P.W. 23 Upasrao, who claimed to have seen them together, was discredited due to contradictions and lack of disclosure to the police. The court concluded that the previous association necessary to establish a conspiracy for murder was not proven.

3. Appellant's Presence and Movements on the Day of the Murder:
The prosecution claimed that the appellant was absent from the Gurudwara between 11 A.M. and 12:45 P.M., during which time the murder occurred. The evidence included testimonies from P.W. 30 Atmaram, P.W. 35 Tilakchand, and P.W. 5 Bisan. However, D.W. 1 Anupsingh Bedi, a disinterested witness, testified that he saw the appellant at the Gurudwara around 11:45 A.M. Despite some discrepancies in the timing, the court accepted the prosecution's evidence that the appellant was absent long enough to commit the murder.

4. Disposal of the Body:
The court scrutinized the evidence regarding the disposal of the body, particularly the testimony of P.W. 14 Sannat Rao, the rickshaw coolie. The court found his testimony shaky and noted several coincidences that cast doubt on his reliability. The court inferred that Sannat Rao might have been an accomplice in the disposal of the body, which required independent corroboration.

5. Corroboration of Accomplice Testimony:
The court emphasized the need for independent evidence to corroborate the testimony of an accomplice. The court found that the confession of Gurubachan Singh could not be used to corroborate Sannat Rao's testimony without strong reasons. The court noted irregularities in Gurubachan's confession and the manner in which it was obtained, making it unsafe to use as corroboration.

6. Motive for the Crime:
The court accepted the finding that the appellant had a motive for enmity against Tiwari and had expressed a determination to be revenged. However, the court noted that other persons who were also dismissed from service had similar motives, making this evidence less conclusive.

7. Evidence of Clothing (Coat and Safa) Associated with the Crime:
The court examined the evidence regarding the coat (Article X) and safa (Article Y) found in the house of the appellant's brother. The court found no strong evidence connecting these items to the appellant. The testimony of P.W. 14 Sannat Rao and others regarding the identification of the coat was found unreliable. The court also noted discrepancies in the description of the coat, which had two buttons, whereas the appellant's coat was described as having only one button.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the evidence against the appellant was insufficient to convict him of murder, conspiracy, and kidnapping. The court found that the appellant had a motive and was absent from the Gurudwara during the time of the murder, but there was no proof of his direct involvement in the murder. The appellant was acquitted of the charges of murder, conspiracy, and kidnapping but was convicted under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code for assisting in the disposal of the body and was sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment.