text stringlengths 5 5.67k |
|---|
He says he saw the appellant at the Gurudwa ra at 11 and again "about 11 45 A.M." The sessions Judge thought he was interested because he admits he reported a complaint he had received from Gurudayalsingh, to the effect that the appellant was being harassed by the police and that they threatened to arrest ladies also, ... |
He explained that as head of the Sikh community in that State he felt bound to pass on these complaints to the highest authorities. Ratio |
We are unable to regard this as disclosing interest. Ratio |
There is no suggestion that what he did was improper and we are of opinion he did nothing more than any man of responsibility in his position would have done. Ratio |
The High Court has not criticised him. Ratio |
The learned Judges merely say that he may be mistaken as to the time; nor of course does he suggest that he is giving more than a mere estimate. Ratio |
All he 535 says is that, "It may have been about 11 45 A.M. by this time. Ratio |
" We do not think there is much in all this. Ratio |
Nobody, except P.W. 5 Bisan, pretends to be exact and when one is guessing at the time several days after the event there really is not much discrepancy between 11 20 and 11 45. Ratio |
Even if it was 11 45 there would still have been sufficient time to commit the murder. Ratio |
As two Courts have believed the evi dence on this point without calling in aid the confession, we are not prepared to depart from our usual rule regarding concurrent findings of fact. Ratio |
We will therefore accept the position that the appellant was absent from the Gurudwara long enough to enable him to commit the murder. Ratio |
We will also take into consideration the fact that he made a false statement on this point when he said he was not away at all. Ratio |
(4) Disposal of the body. Ratio |
The rest of the evidence relates to the disposal of the body and the only direct evidence connecting the appellant with this, apart from the confession, is that of Sannatrao P.W. 14, the rickshaw coolie. Ratio |
He does not bring the appellant into the picture till about midnight. Ratio |
Now this coolie is a very shaky witness. Ratio |
We cannot but note the remarkable series of coincidences which emerge from his testimony. Ratio |
First, he is not a rickshaw coolie at all. Ratio |
He merely hap pened to hire a rickshaw that night, and he told the police that this was the first time he had ever done that at night after. Ratio |
a day 's work. Ratio |
Next, he knew the appellant because he happened to be a chowkidar in the Food Office at Gondia at the same time that the appellant was there as a Food Inspec tor. Ratio |
But at the date of the incident neither was still in service, so by a somewhat strange coincidence the appellant happens to hire, for the first time, this old co worker in the middle of the night who, in his turn, happened to hire, also for the first time at night, a rickshaw for which he had no licence. Ratio |
Next comes a still stranger coincidence. Ratio |
He is taken to within a few paces of his own house and the body 536 is dumped, in his presence, into a welt, a stone 's throw from where he lives. Ratio |
Gurubachan tells us that earlier in the day, about 7 P.M., he (Gurubachan) had carried, unaided, the "bedding" on his head for a distance which we know was hail to three quarters of a mile, namely from Gurudayal 's house to the chowkidar 's hut. Ratio |
Despite this, the two are said to have engaged this rickshaw coolie to carry it just hall a mile (a shorter distance) to the well and there they threw it in in the man 's presence; and none of this was disclosed to the police till a month later, namely the 17th of January, though the witness was present when the body w... |
We do not doubt that a rickshaw was used because rick shaw tracks were discovered by the well long before anybody had suggested that a rickshaw had been used. Ratio |
But we find it difficult to resist the inference that this witness was an accomplice so far as the disposal of the body was concerned. Ratio |
Consequently, he is in much the same category so far as credibility is concerned, That brings us at once to the rule that save in exceptional circumstances one accomplice cannot be used to corroborate another, nor can he be used to corroborate a person who though not an accomplice is no more reliable than one. Ratio |
We have therefore either to seek corrobo ration of a kind which will implicate the appellant apart from the confession or find strong reasons for using Guruba chan 's confession for that purpose. Ratio |
Of course, against Gurubachan there is no difficulty, but against the appellant the position is not as easy. Ratio |
We will therefore examine the reliability of Guruba chan 's confession against the appellant. Ratio |
Now there are some glaring irregularities regarding this confession and though it was safe for the Sessions Judge and the High Court to act on it as against Gurubachan because he adhered to it throughout the sessions trial despite his pleader 's efforts to show the contrary, a very different position emerges when we co... |
537 The first point which emerges regarding this is that the confession was not made till the 25th of February 1950, that is to say, not until two months after the murder. Ratio |
We do not know when Gurubachan was first interrogated but P.W. 42 Narayandas tells us that when he was taken to the police station house at Gondia for interrogation about the 1st or 3rd January he saw Gurubachan sitting in the police lock up. Ratio |
We do not know how long he was kept there like this but it is evident that he was not there voluntari ly, at any rate till the 1st or 3rd because the Station Officer P.W. 44 says that "until Gurubachan Singh was ar rested he used to be allowed to go home." Ratio |
Also he says that Gurubachan was interrogated several times and was confronted with Pritipal. Ratio |
However, eventually Gurubachan was allowed to go away and he went to Balaghat. Ratio |
Then, on the 16th of February the Station Officer P.W. 44 went to Balaghat, brought Gurubachan back with him to Gondia and handed him over to the C.I.D. Inspector Guha. Ratio |
Guha P.W. 50 tells us that from then till the 20th of February, when he was arrested, he was kept under observation but was allowed to go home at night. Ratio |
He did not confess till the 25th and the Station Officer P.W. 44 tells us that from the 20th to the 25th he was kept in one of the rooms in Guha 's quarters. Ratio |
Then, after the confes sion on the 25th he was taken back to Guha 's custody for a couple of days and then only was he sent to the magisterial lock up. Ratio |
(See Guha 's evidence). Ratio |
He was kept in this lock up till the conclusion of the committal proceedings, that is, till the 30th of June, instead of being sent to jail custody in Bhandara where there is a jail. Ratio |
The other accused includ ing Pritipal who had by then confessed were sent to Bhanda ra. Ratio |
Now though Gurubachan was kept in the magisterial lock up the distinction between the magisterial lock up and police custody in Gondia is only 538 theoretical. Ratio |
In practice, it is no better than police custody. Ratio |
Police constable Lalbahadur P.W. 55 tells us that "The Station House Officer Gondia deputes constables for duty in the lock up. Ratio |
The constables in charge take the prisoners out to the latrine and also arrange for their food. Ratio |
The Head Constable in fact is in charge. Ratio |
" Also, Guha admits that he interrogated Gurubachan in the lock up twice within the ten days which succeeded the confession. Ratio |
This is in disregard of the Rules and Orders (Criminal) of the Nagpur High Court which enjoin at page 25, paragraph 84, of the 1948 edition that "After a prisoner has made a confession before a a magistrate he should ordinarily be committed to jail and the magistrate should note on the warrant for the information of th... |
As we have said, the other prisoners were all committed to jail custody in the usual way, so there was no difficulty about observing the rule. Ratio |
All this makes it unsafe to disregard the rule about using accomplice testimo ny as corroboration against a non confessing accused. Ratio |
None of the judges who have handled this ease has given any reason why this rule could safely be departed from in this particular case. Ratio |
In the circumstances, we do not feel that the confession by itself can be used to corroborate the rickshaw coolie Sannatrao, P.W. 14. Ratio |
But there is other corroboration. Ratio |
It consists of the sari border and this is the next point on which the prosecution relies. Ratio |
There is one argument about this confession advanced on behalf of the appellant with which we shall have to deal. Ratio |
The prosecution were criticised for not calling the magis trate who recorded the confession as a witness. Ratio |
We wish to endorse the remarks of their 539 Lordships of the Privy Council in Nazir Ahrnad vs King Emperor (1) regarding the undesirability of such a practice. PRE |
In our opinion, the magistrate was rightly not called and it would have been improper and undesirable for the prosecution to have acted otherwise. Ratio |
(5) Sari borders, Articles F, G, and T. Articles F & G are two pieces of a sari border which were used for tying up the mouth of the gunny bag, in which the body was placed. PRE |
The evidence about that is beyond doubt. PRE |
Article T is another piece of a sari border which was found in the appellant 's house on the 30th or December, 1949. PRE |
It is true the appellant was not present at the time but his mother was there and it will be seen that it was seized on the same day that the body was discovered. PRE |
There is strong proof that Articles F and G are a part of the same border as Article T, and as there is a concurrent finding regarding these facts we are not prepared to to take a different view. PRE |
That therefore affords corroboration of Sannatrao 's evi dence and the confession can be called in aid to lend assur ance to the inference which arises from these facts, namely that the appellant did help to dispose of the body. PRE |
The High Court and the Sessions Judge were accordingly entitled to act on this evidence for establishing that particular fact and we are not prepared to disturb their concurrent conclusions. PRE |
But the matter cannot be carried further because, not only are the sari borders not proved to have had any connection with the crime of murder but the confes sion shows that they did not. PRE |
The only conclusion permissi ble on these facts is that the appellant, at some time which is unknown, subsequent to the murder assisted either active ly or passively in tying up the gunny bag in which the corpse was placed and that he then accompanied Gurubachan in the rickshaw from the chowkidar 's hut to the well in ... |
(6) Coat, Article X, and Safa, Article Y, (1) A.I.R. 1936 P.C. 253 at 258, 540 These were seized on the 20th of January 1950 from a trunk in the house of the appellant 's brother Gurudayalsingh. Ratio |
The appellant 's house is not in this neighbourhood. Ratio |
It is some distance away in another part of the town. Ratio |
The coat is a uniform coat of the kind worn by a Travelling Ticket Inspector on the Railways. Ratio |
Gurudayal is a travelling Ticket Inspector. Ratio |
The appellant is not. Ratio |
Here again the appellant was not present when the seizures were made. Ratio |
This coat and safa were recovered in the fourth search. Ratio |
The first search was on the 30th of December 1949. Ratio |
The next on the 10th of January 1950. Ratio |
The third on the morning of the 20th and the fourth in the afternoon of the 20th. Ratio |
These Articles were not found in the first three searches. Ratio |
The Chemical Examiner reports that there is one minute blood stain on the safa and some (the number is not given), also minute, on the coat. Ratio |
The seizure memo, exhibit P 55, picked out only five. Ratio |
Those stains are not proved to be of human blood. Ratio |
Now there is next no evidence to connect either the coat or the safa with the appellant. Ratio |
The High Court has relied on the evidence of Sannatrao (P.W. 14), Gokulprasad the Station Officer (P.W. 44) and Tiwari (P.W. 48). FAC |
Sannatrao does no more than say that he noticed the appellant wearing a popat coloured sara and a black coat. Ratio |
But he was not able to describe the clothes of the passenger he had carried immediately before the appellant, nor was he able to de scribe the appellant 's coat in detail. Ratio |
That therefore is no identification of this coat with the one the appellant wore or owns. Ratio |
The Station Officer Gokulprasad said that he had seen the appellant wear this very coat and sara and there fore he identified them as his clothes. Ratio |
In cross examina tion he admitted that he had only seen the appellant on three occasions but not to speak to. Ratio |
Consequently, that is not strong evidence of identification. Ratio |
But what in our opinion is almost conclusive against this identification is that Tiwari, P.W. 48, who is clearest on the point and who of course had the best opportunities for observation, 541 gives a distinctive feature of the appellant 's coat, namely that it had only one button. Ratio |
That is one of his reasons for knowing what the appellant used to wear. Ratio |
But the seizure memo, exhibit P. 55, shows that the coat, Article X, had two buttons. Ratio |
In the circumstances we find it difficult to see how it can be the appellant 's coat. Ratio |
There is another strong point in the appellant 's favour which the High Court has not noticed. Ratio |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.