1978 (8) TMI 241 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity and voluntariness of the confession by Boota Singh.
2. Corroboration of the confession by independent evidence.
3. Identification of the accused.
4. Evidence of conspiracy and motive.
5. Corpus delicti and the identity of the deceased.
6. Charges under various sections of the IPC (Indian Penal Code).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity and Voluntariness of the Confession by Boota Singh:
The central evidence against the respondents was the confessional statement made by Boota Singh before a Magistrate. The High Court rejected this confession, claiming it was not voluntary. However, the Supreme Court found that the Magistrate had taken all necessary precautions to ensure the confession was voluntary. Boota Singh was given adequate time for reflection and was not in police custody when the confession was recorded. The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for basing its rejection on speculation and conjecture without substantial evidence.

2. Corroboration of the Confession by Independent Evidence:
The Supreme Court emphasized that even though the confession was retracted, it could be acted upon if substantially corroborated by independent circumstances. The Court found that the confession was corroborated by various pieces of evidence, including the hiring of the taxi, the presence of the respondents at different locations, and the recovery of the deceased's belongings. The evidence of independent witnesses and documentary evidence such as receipts and entries in registers further supported the confession.

3. Identification of the Accused:
The High Court had dismissed the identification evidence as weak, relying on a misinterpretation of a Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court clarified that identification evidence is not inherently weak if conducted properly. Witnesses had identified Boota Singh and Trilok Singh in a Test Identification Parade (TIP) and in court. The Court found no reason to distrust the identification evidence, especially since witnesses had ample opportunity to observe the accused.

4. Evidence of Conspiracy and Motive:
The motive for the crime was established through the confession and corroborated by the testimony of P.W. 16 Ram Lal. The respondents had conspired to obtain money by any means to complete a land purchase. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had erred in dismissing the evidence of motive and conspiracy, which was clearly supported by independent witnesses and documents.

5. Corpus Delicti and the Identity of the Deceased:
The identity of the deceased, Lal Singh, was established through the recovery of his skeleton and personal belongings. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had overlooked crucial evidence, such as the recovery of the deceased's clothes and a dry-cleaning receipt bearing his signature. The Court concluded that the skeleton found was indeed that of Lal Singh, corroborating the confession.

6. Charges under Various Sections of the IPC:
The Supreme Court found that the charges under sections 302 read with 34, 120-B, 364 read with 34, 120-B, 394 read with 34, 120-B, 419, and 471 read with 465 and 466 IPC were proved beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence showed that Boota Singh had impersonated an Army officer to hire the taxi and had conspired with others to murder Lal Singh and steal the car.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal against Boota Singh, setting aside the High Court's judgment and convicting him of the charges. Boota Singh was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder and other related charges. The appeal against Trilok Singh abated due to his death, and the appeal against Asa Singh was kept pending as he was absconding. The appeal against Raghubir Singh was dismissed, and his acquittal was confirmed.