9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction and legality of altering the conviction to Section 161/109 I.P.C. 2. Admissibility and interpretation of Exs. P-3 and P-4 as confessions. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction and Legality of Altering the Conviction: The appellant was initially convicted under Section 165A I.P.C. and sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment by the Special Judge, Bulandshahar. The High Court later altered the conviction to one under Section 161 read with Section 109 I.P.C., maintaining the same sentence. The appellant contended that this alteration was against the provisions of Article 20 of the Constitution since the alleged offense occurred before Section 165A was enacted. The Supreme Court noted that the legal effect of Section 161/109 I.P.C. is the same as that of Section 165A, especially concerning the abetment of an offense actually committed. The Court found that no new facts needed to be brought to the appellant's notice and that the punishment under both sections is identical. The Court also highlighted that the appellant could have raised this objection earlier and found no prejudice against him. Therefore, the contention regarding the jurisdiction and legality of altering the conviction was rejected. 2. Admissibility and Interpretation of Exs. P-3 and P-4 as Confessions: The appellant argued that the High Court erred in relying on Exs. P-3 and P-4 as confessions in the absence of corroborating evidence. The Supreme Court examined whether these documents amounted to a confession. According to the Privy Council in Narayana Swami v. Emperor, a confession must admit the offense or substantially all the facts constituting the offense. The Court noted that an admission of an incriminating fact is not necessarily a confession. - Ex. P-3 Analysis: The appellant stated that he paid Rs. 300 to Roshan Lal Gupta for permits but did not receive the bricks. He claimed to have been cheated and requested either the bricks or a refund. The Court found that this document could suggest an inference of bribery but did not amount to a confession as it did not admit the offense or all the facts constituting the offense of abetment. - Ex. P-4 Analysis: This document, written four months later, mentioned a previous incident where Roshan Lal Gupta and Mr. Bhatnagar took Rs. 300 from another individual for permits and subsidies. The appellant indicated that he learned about this after paying the money. The Court concluded that this document did not show the appellant had the same knowledge when he paid the money on December 4, 1948. Thus, it could not be considered a confession. The Court determined that the two documents, even when read together, did not meet the criteria for a confession. They might suggest an inference of bribery but did not provide a plenary admission of guilt. The Court also noted that the original permits were not seized, leaving room for doubt about their authenticity. Conclusion: The Supreme Court found that the High Court wrongly regarded Exs. P-3 and P-4 as confessions and that the appellant's guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant.
|
