1953 (1) TMI 31 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the confessions made by the appellants.
2. Applicability of Article 20(3) of the Constitution regarding retracted confessions.
3. Applicability of Article 20(2) of the Constitution concerning double jeopardy.
4. Sufficiency of evidence against the appellants.
5. Appropriateness of the sentences imposed by the lower courts.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Confessions Made by the Appellants:
The confessions of both appellants were recorded under section 164, Criminal Procedure Code, but retracted in the Committing Magistrate's court. The confessions were used against them at the sessions trial and in their examination under section 342, Criminal Procedure Code. The Court found that the confessions were voluntary and made without any inducement, threat, or promise. The Court noted, "A confession has to be voluntary before it can be used against a person making it, and a magistrate is bound to satisfy himself that it is being made without any inducement, threat or promise."

2. Applicability of Article 20(3) of the Constitution Regarding Retracted Confessions:
The appellants contended that using retracted confessions contravened Article 20(3) of the Constitution. The Court dismissed this argument, stating, "Sub-section (3) of article 20 does not apply at all to a case where the confession is made without any inducement, threat or promise." The Court emphasized that the probative value of a retracted confession is limited, but its use does not violate constitutional provisions.

3. Applicability of Article 20(2) of the Constitution Concerning Double Jeopardy:
The appellants argued that the Government's right to appeal against an acquittal contravened Article 20(2) of the Constitution. The Court clarified, "An appeal against an acquittal wherever such is provided by the procedure is in substance a continuation of the prosecution." Therefore, the appeal did not constitute double jeopardy.

4. Sufficiency of Evidence Against the Appellants:
The Court evaluated the evidence, including the confessions and testimonies of witnesses like Shibbi (P.W. 3). The confessions provided detailed accounts of the murder and implicated both appellants. Shibbi's testimony corroborated the presence of Ranjit Singh at the crime scene. The Court found, "There are definite circumstances which indicate beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of Ranjit Singh." However, the Court expressed doubts about Kalawati's involvement in the murder, stating, "It is possible that she aided and abetted Ranjit Singh in the criminal deed...but it is prudent to err on the safe side, and hold her guilty only of an offence under Section 201, Indian Penal Code."

5. Appropriateness of the Sentences Imposed by the Lower Courts:
The Sessions Judge sentenced Ranjit Singh to death and Kalawati to five years' rigorous imprisonment under section 201, Indian Penal Code. The Judicial Commissioner acquitted Kalawati under section 201 but convicted her under section 302 read with section 114, sentencing her to transportation for life. The Supreme Court modified the sentences: "We substitute for the sentence of death the sentence of transportation for life" for Ranjit Singh and "convict her of an offence under section 201, Indian Penal Code, and sentence her to three years' rigorous imprisonment" for Kalawati.

Conclusion:
- Ranjit Singh's appeal (No. 74 of 1952) was dismissed, but his sentence was reduced to transportation for life.
- Kalawati's appeal (No. 73 of 1952) was allowed, her conviction under section 302 was discharged, but she was convicted under section 201 and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment.