9911796707
TMI Blog1953 (1) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icit intimacy with each other, and that they got rid of Kanwar Bikram Singh, as he was cruel in his behavior to Kalawati. The last act of ill-treatment is said to have been on the 6th July, when Kanwar Bikram slapped his wife. Unable to endure the continued humiliation at the hands of her husband, and in the hope that her intrigue with Ranjit Singh would be facilitated, Kalawati is said to have conspired with Ranjit Singh to do away with her husband. 3. Ranjit Singh was charged with murder under section 302, Indian Penal Code, and Kalawati was charged under sections 114 and 302, Indian Penal Code, with abatement of murder, which was committed in consequence. The Sessions Judge of Mahasu and Sirmur found Ranjit Singh guilty of the offence and sentenced him to the extreme penalty of the law. He acquitted Kalawati of the offence of abatement under section 302 read with section 114, but found her guilty under section 201, Indian Penal Code, as she suppressed the evidence, screened Ranjit Singh, and gave false information in respect of the murder; and he sentenced her to five years' rigorous imprisonment. 4. The two appellants preferred appeals to the Court of the Judicial Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st him or her at all, as it would contravene article 20(3) of the Constitution, which provides that no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. It is difficult to see the force of this point. 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. No person accused of a crime is bound to make a confession, and if there is any compulsion or threat, it has to be ruled out as irrelevant and inadmissible. 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. It is true that a retracted confession has only little value as the basis for a conviction, and that the confession of one accused is not evidence against a co-accused tried jointly for the same offence, but can only be taken into consideration against him. This deals with its probative value and has nothing to do with any repugnancy to the Constitution. 9. It was also urged that as sub-clause (2) of article 20 of the Constitution provides that no person shall be prosecuted a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that he took the police and took out a sword from a bush to the west of the place of occurrence at a distance of 100 yards. Some bushes had to be cut at the instance of the accused before the sword was discovered. Certain ornaments, thirty-five in number, and said to belong to Kalawati were unearthed by the accused himself on 27th October, 1951, from a room of his house in Basdhera. They were all in a metal box, and the box was in an earthen pot which lay buried in the earth. 12. Kalawati made a confession on 28th July, 1951, before the Magistrate, Sri Antani (P.W. 31). The confession of Ranjit Singh was recorded by the same Magistrate on 3rd August, 1951. 13. The material evidence in the case consists of these two confessions and the evidence given by the maidservant, Shibbi (P.W. 3). The other evidence adduced relates to motive and the several discoveries, on which the prosecution relies as corroborative circumstances to support the substantial truth of the confessions, which were retracted even before the Committing Magistrate by both the appellants. 14. It is abundantly clear that the relationship between Kalawati and her deceased husband, Bikram Singh, was strained. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e sleeping in the courtyard downstairs came up. Kalawati was standing near the steps of an adjoining room. When she told her that Ranjit Singh was running away Kalawati denied that it was Ranjit Singh, and stated that some dacoits had come and robbed her of her ornaments. Her evidence was accepted by the courts below, and there is a ring of truth about it. If she was a false witness, there was nothing to prevent her from saying that she saw Ranjit Singh attacking Bikram Singh with a sword. But she tells us that she did not see the commission of the murder, and saw only the back of Ranjit Singh when he was hurrying down at a distance of a yard or so from her bed. She could not identify the weapon in his hand, except to the extent of stating that he was holding something shining. It is true that she did not mention the name of Ranjit Singh at any time earlier than in the Committing Magistrate's court, but this was because Kalawati had scolded her and asked her to keep quite. The suggestion that her husband, Nathu, was probably responsible for the murder, as his hands were admittedly bloodstained when people had gathered there, is unlikely. He had no motive whatever to kill his ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asked either about Ranjit Singh's allegation. Much argument was addressed to the effect that it was not at all likely that Ranjit Singh would have buried the ornaments in his own house and in an open room, and that if he wanted to conceal traces of the crime, he would have concealed them elsewhere. The ornaments had to be returned in all probability, and he might have thought that their careful preservation was his duty. Had he concealed them in a locked room or box, it would have been much more damaging to him if they were discovered by the police who would inevitably search his house. It was not till the evening of the 27th that Kalawati made a confession to the police, and there was hardly any time for them to take hold of the ornaments from Manimajra, proceed to Bashdera, implant them in the house of Ranjit Singh, return to Bishanpura, and take Ranjit to his house on the 29th so that he could show the place of concealment. We are not prepared to differ from the learned Judicial Commissioner, who rejected the criticisms of the Sessions Judge about this recovery and accepted the prosecution story as true. 20. As regards Kalawati the case is suspicious, no doubts. It is pos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... says : We had become so close that I can claim to have been all his clothes, because he used to keep his boxes usually with me and his rooms was also next to mine. He may not have seen all my clothes, but those that I wore must have been seen by him. Normally he would have seen only the jewellery which I wore. He had not known of my jewellery box. 22. The conversation between Kalawati and Ranjit Singh in the presence of a maid-servant near the well where she had gone to wash her clothes is rather incredible. For these reasons, we hesitate to act upon the confession of Kalawati and find her guilty of aiding and abetting the offence of murder. 23. But there can scarcely be any doubt that she must have witnessed the murder of her husband lying next to her on a charpai. Shibbi who was at a distance of 18 feet was roused by the sound of a sword attack. Kalawati must have woke up also at least during the course of the assault if not at its commencement, several injuries having been inflicted in succession. When Shibbi woke up, Kalawati's bed was empty, and she was found in a room nearby and not at the place of occurrence. She trotted out an elaborate story of dacoity, whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
