9911796707
TMI Blog1956 (9) TMI 58X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 5 respectively. Mst. Chinti, a woman aged about 27 or 28, it was alleged, was strangled to death by the appellant Balbir Singh on the night between the 18th and 19th of February 1954. Her two sons, Kewal Singh and Autar Singh, were also hit by a Kirpan (sword) and died then and there as a result of the injuries Caused. Balbir and Jagir were also charged under Section 457, Indian Penal Code for having committed house-breaking and theft on the same night in the house of Mst. Chinti. In the Court of Session an additional charge was added, namely a charge under Section 376, Indian Penal Code on the allegation that Mst. Chinti was raped by the appellant Balbir, when the woman had been almost strangled to death. Three of the assessors were of the opinion that both the accused persons were guilty of murder. The fourth assessor said that he was not in a position to say which of the two accused persons murdered whom, but they did enter the house of Mst. Chinti on the night in question. The learned Sessions Judge did not accept the opinion of the assessors. He held that the prosecution had failed to make out a case against the accused persons on the charges framed against them. Accordingly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry window. Balbir strangled Mst. Chinti by twisting her Dopatta (Ex. P-31) round her neck; when she was almost strangled to death Balbir committed rape and then made sure that Mst. Chinti was really dead. The trunks and boxes kept in the house were ransacked and some gold and silver ornaments were removed. The two boys of Mst. Chinti got up and as they had recognised the accused persons, they were also killed by means of a Kirpan. After the commission of the crime, Balbir Singh and Jagir Singh left the house. Balbir, it was stated left the village at about 4 or 5 a. m. and did not come back till the night of the 20th of February 1954. On the morning of the 19th February, Mst. Dhanti came to the house of her daughter-in-law to make enquiries, as nobody had reached her meal to her house and the she-buffalo tethered there had also not been milked in the morning. She said that the usual practice was that one of the members of the family took her meal to her house, and the she-buffalo tethered there was also milked in the morning. Mst. Dhanti suffered from weak eye-sight, and when she came to the house of her daughter-in-law on the morning of the 19th, she called out but got no reply. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Session, gave an explanation as to why two kinds of thread were used in stitching the Chaddar. On the 19th February 1954, the Sub-Inspector went to the house of the appellant Balbir Singh but did not find him there. On the 21st February, Balbir Singh, it was alleged, made an extra-judicial confession before certain persons. He was later produced before the Sub-Inspector of Police at about 9 a. m. The evidence of the Sub-Inspector was that on examining closely the shirt which the appellant was wearing at the time, he (that is, the Sub-Inspector) found some faint marks of blood on it. He took charge of the shirt (Ex. P-5). It was later sent to the chemical examiner and was found to contain stains of human blood. The appellant then made a statement that he had buried gold Kantas (ear-rings) near a pathway and "pipal" tree and offered to point out the place. One Shri Ram Lal (P. W. 27), another Sub-Inspector of Police, accompanied the appellant, when the appellant produced a second Chaddar (Ex. P-6) from his house. It was stated that the appellant then took the said Sub-Inspector and certain other persons to a place which has been described as a "halti" and from nea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, death was due to asphyxia caused by strangulation. 9. Before the Committing Magistrate as also in the Court of Session, the appellant denied the allegations made against him. He denied that he had strangled Mst. Chinti to death. He denied that he had entered the house of Mst. Chinti on the night in question. He denied that he had committed rape on her. He also denied that the Chaddar (Ex. P-4) was his. He denied that the Sub-Inspector of Police took possession of the shirt (Ex. P-5) from his person on the 21st February. He denied that that shirt belonged to him. He denied that he had taken the Sub-Inspector of Police Ram Lal and certain other persons to a "pipal" tree and dug out the pair of gold ear-rings. With regard to his confession, the appellant made the following statements: "I was beaten by the police and my father was maltreated in my presence. They threatened to shoot me in case I did not make a statement as desired by them. I was farther told that my hand-cuffs would be removed if I made the statement as told. I was seated in the office of Inspector Indar Singh and was given some thing in tea and I became unconscious. I had no knowledge of what happen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that there was no sufficient corroboration; but so far as the charge under Section 457, Indian Penal Code, was concerned, they held that the recovery of the ornaments was an independent corroboration of the confessions. As regards the blood-stained clothes found an the accused persons, the learned Judges accepted that the clothes of both the accused persons were blood-stained, but they expressed the view that as Section 34, Indian Penal Code, did not apply and as the confessions did not agree as to which of the two accused persons had killed the two children, the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the charge relating to the murder of the two children. 12. On behalf of the appellant Mr. Jai Gopal Sethi has submitted that though the learned Judges have set out correctly the principles which should guide the High Court in an appeal from an order of acquittal, they have in fact disregarded those principles while reviewing the evidence upon which the order of acquittal in this case was founded. The power of the High Court in dealing with an appeal under Section 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code is now settled by several decisions of this Court. There is the decis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ime. His argument has been that there was no corroboration of the confession of the appellant with regard to the second point stated above. Thirdly, Mr. Sethi has contended that the learned Judges of the High Court disregarded the principles which should guide the High Court in reviewing the evidence in an appeal from an order of acquittal, and they accepted the evidence with regard to the three circumstances alleged against the appellant, namely (1) the identity of the Chaddar (Ex. P-4), (2) the recovery of the gold ear-rings and (3) the existence of blood stains on his shirt (Ex. P-5), without displacing the reason's given by the trial Judge for not accepting that evidence. Mr. Sethi has also submitted that the learned Judges of the High Court did not consider the recovery of the gold ear-rings as corroborative of the offence of murdering Mst. Chinti; rather, they thought that the recovery of gold ear-rings merely afforded corroboration with regard to the charge under Section 457, Indian Penal Code; similarly, it has been urged that the recovery of the Chaddar (Ex. P-4) and the blood-stained shirt (Ex. P-5) was not corroborative of the confession of the appellant regarding th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an lying there, and took some silver ornaments from that house. He denied that he had anything to do with the murder of Mst. Chinti or even the murder of the two boys; he more or less tried to make out that he was an unwilling spectator of the crime committed by the appellant. In these circumstances, the utmost that can be submitted on behalf of the appellant is that the confession of Jagir Singh should not be used at all against the appellant. At one stage of his argument Mr. Sethi did submit that the confession of Jagir Singh should be excluded altogether from consideration against the appellant; later, however, he submitted that both the confessions should be read together in order to condemn both as untrue on the ground of the differences between the two confessions. We are unable to accept this submission of Mr. Sethi. We have pointed out that some of the differences are immaterial; some are due to the desire of Jagir Singh to throw the blame on the appellant -- a circumstance of which the benefit has been given to the appellant, and some other differences are clearly resolved by other evidence on the record. We do not think that in these circumstances the confessional stateme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the learned Judges said that they had no hesitation in rejecting the defence plea that the confession was not voluntary. We see no reasons for holding that that finding of the High Court is in any way vitiated. 17. The next question is whether the confession contained a true account of what the appellant had done on the night in question apart from some of the differences between the two confessional statements which we have already dealt with, learned counsel for the appellant has not suggested any other substantial ground on which the confession of the appellant should be held to be untrue. The learned Judges of the High Court have set out the circumstances which corroborate the confession as to the manner in which the crime was committed. There is, first of all, the Dopatta (Ex. P-31) which was tied round the neck of the woman. It undoubtedly corroborates the confession as to the manner in which, according to the appellant's confession, the woman was strangled. Then, there are the broken trunks and locks which also corroborate the manner in which the crime was committed. It is unnecessary to repeat all the circumstances, because they have been set out in full by the learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al sense of distrust which has vitiated his findings. For example, the identity of the Chaddar (Ex. P-4) was fully established by the evidence of the tailor Ramchand (P. W. 11). The reason which the learned Sessions Judge gave for not accepting the evidence of the tailor was that the police did not get the stitching on the Chaddar compared with the stitching usually made by the machine of the witness. The learned Judges of the High Court rightly pointed out that the reason given by the learned Sessions Judge was unsatisfactory and there was nothing on the record to show that a comparison of the stitching on the Chaddar with the stitching made by the machine of the witness would have served any fruitful purpose. Learned counsel for the appellant took us through the evidence of the tailor and said that there were other reasons why the learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the evidence of the tailor. In our opinion, the learned Sessions Judge discarded the evidence of the tailor from an initial sense of distrust of almost all the witnesses and gave no convincing reasons for disbelieving the tailor. The tailor had no enmity against the appellant and identified the Chaddar (Ex. P-4) at a t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said that he had entrusted the Chaddar to Jagir Singh, and it was argued that the recovery of the Chaddar from the room in which the two boys were killed afforded no corroboration of the participation of the appellant in the crime. The Chaddar undoubtedly belonged to the appellant. It is worthy of note that this Chaddar (Ex. P-4) was also stained with human blood, and the existence of the Chaddar in the room where the two boys were killed is a circumstance against the appellant and does afford corroboration of his participation in the crime. 21. As a matter of fact, the three circumstances found against the appellant, namely, (1) recovery of his blood-stained Chaddar from the room where the murder took place, (2) recovery of the gold ear-rings which belonged to the deceased woman and (3) recovery of a blood-stained shirt from the person of the appellant, were all circumstances which, if believed, would connect the appellant with the crime. The confession lends further assurance to the evidence relating to those circumstances. The learned Sessions Judge gave a fantastic reason for not accepting the evidence as to the recovery of the ornaments against the appellant. He said that as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
