9911796707
TMI Blog1964 (1) TMI 76X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y within two or three days of the post-mortem examination. He stated in Court that no water was found inside either the lungs or the abdomen or the larynx or in the middle ear. This rules out the possibility of Gulab's dying due to drowning. 4. As a result of the investigation, the appellant and one Banwari were sent up for trial for the murder of Gulab. It is interesting to observe the course of the investigation. The police knew nothing of the offence till 9 P.M. on January 20, 1963, when the appellant himself went to the police station, Saroichhola, and lodged a first information report stating therein that on peeping into the well near the peepul tree of Hadpai on the morning of January 20, 1962, he found his son lying dead in the well. Earlier, he had narrated the events leading to his observing the corpse and that narration of facts accused Ramle, Bhanta and one cyclist of the offence of murdering the boy Gulab. It was this information which took the police to the well and to the recovery of the corpse. 5. The police arrested the persons indicated to be the culprits, viz., Ramle, Bhanta and the cyclist, who was found to be Shyama, by January 26. These persons remained in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by Faddi. 7. The High Court did not rely on the confession and on the recovery of the pair of shorts from the appellant's possession, and we think, rightly. The evidence about the confession is discrepant and unconvincing. Bhagwan Singh and Ramle deposed that the deceased was wearing the pair of shorts recovered, at the time the appellant took him away. Bhagwan Singh did not go to the test identification. The accused was not questioned about the deceased wearing these pair of shorts at the time he was taken away from the village. 8. The High Court considered the other circumstances sufficient to establish that the appellant had committed the murder of Gulab. If therefore confirmed the conviction and sentence. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken us through the entire evidence and commented on it. He has contended that the evidence is unreliable, and should not have been accepted by the Courts below. We have considered his criticism and are of opinion that the Courts below have correctly appreciated the evidence. It is not necessary for us to discuss it over again. 10. It may be mentioned now that the appellant denies having gone to Ramle's house in village Torkhed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant knew where the deceased's body was as it was on what he had stated in the report that the police went to the well of village Jarah and recovered the dead body. The accused gave no explanation in Court as to haw he came to know about it. What he had stated in the report had been considered and found to be untrue and specially in view of the appellant's own conduct. It has been rightly stressed that if Gulab had been forcibly taken away from him by Ramle and others, the appellant ordinarily would have gone and taken some action about it, without wasting his time in just following those people. Even if he felt interested in following them and had heard the sound of something being thrown inside the well and had also seen those persons running away, he had no reason to remain hidden at that spot the whole night. He should have informed people of what he had observed as he must have suspected that these persons had played mischief with Gulab. 13. The High Court also took into consideration the incorrectness of the appellant's statement that he observed the dead body floating in the well on the morning of January 20. It is contended for the appellant that the first ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that this statement is at several points at complete variance with what Dal Singh afterwards stated in Court. The Sessions Judge regarded the document as discrediting his defence. He had to decide between the story for the prosecution and that told for Dal Singh. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the facts of that case were distinguishable in some respects from the facts of this case. Such a distinction, if any, has no bearing on the question of the admissibility of the report. The report was held admissible because it was not a confession and it was helpful in determining the matter before the Court. 17. In Nisar Ali's case 1957CriLJ550 Kapur J. who spoke for the Court said, after narrating the facts: An objection has been taken to the admissibility of this report as it was made by a person who was a co-accused. A first information report is not a substantive piece of evidence and can only be used to corroborate the statement of the maker under s. 157, Evidence Act, or to contradict it under s. 145 of that Act. It can not be used as evidence against the maker at the trial if he himself becomes an accused, nor to corroborate or contradict other witnesses. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
