Ram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh

RAGUHBAR DAYAL, J.- Ram Singh appeals, by special leave, against the order of the Allahabad Raghub4r Dayal J, High Court dismissing his appeal and confirming

lftl his conviction and sentence of des.th, under e. 302, Rl/fll SU.,A I.P.C., by the SeBBion Judge, Eta.wah.

v. The prosecution eaEe, in b1ief, is that due to Sl•'4 of UI"" Pnu.h enmity, the a.ppella.nt caused injuriPe to Sheo Sa.ha.i, R.,m.HF D•J"I J. who wa.s sl.ieping in hie cattle shed in village

Bhadurpur Ghar, with a ~" 01 d a.t about mid-night on the night between June 14.)5, 1960. Sheo ~abai died of the inju1 ies reccivtd. The a.ppella.nt there-after proceeded to the Canal Dietributory at some distance from the village and had a bath there. Later on, ho went to the Police Station, Ekdil, nine miles awa.y a.nd lodged a repo1t. He deliver-ed the sword which has been found by the Serolo-gist to be stained with human blood. 'l he appel· lant was ta.ken in custody a.nd as a result of the in-vestigation was sent up for trial, The appellant denied the allegation that ho had caused tho des.th of Sbeo Saha.i and alleged that he was falsely accused of the offence. He a.Jso denied the other allegations for tho prosecution. He a.lleg· ed that one Paley :::iingh informed him a.bout the murder of 1:-heo Sabai a.nd a.eked him to go to the Police Station, Ekdil, and to inform the Station Officer orally about the murder. He did accor· clingly. He wa.s detained at the Police Station till 11 a..m., tho next day a.nd was then put up in the lock up. The Sub-Inepector took hie thumb impression forcibly on three papers, but did not tell him the reason. The appellant adduced no evidence in support of his statement. The Courts below right-ly did not accept his version.

The evidence led by the prosecution consisted of the evidence relating to motive, to hie extra.- judicial confession to one Ujagar Singh when he was having a. bath in the Canal, to hie purcha.eing the sword and to his delivering it at the polioe Station after he had dictated the report. Be.th the Courts below rightly believed the evidence about tho motive and purchase of the sword by the appellant. The learned Sessions Judg~ believed Ujagar 19/J I Singh and acted on the extra-judicial confession !lam Sirtgh made by the appellant to him. The High Court, how-v. ever, did not relv on this extra-judicial confession. It State of Vttar Pr .zdesh relied on certain statements made by the appellant in his report dictated at the Police Station and consi-Raghuhar Da_v'll J. dered those facts together with the motive and the evidenpe about the purchase of the sword sufficient to confirm the appellant's conviction and sentence.

The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the entire report dictated by the appel-lant was inadmissible in evidence as its contents amounted to a confession of the offence by the appellant made to a Police Officer and tl:iat the evidence relied u_pon by the High Court was insuffi-cient to establish that the appellant had murdered Sheo Sahai. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent urged that the High Court was wrong in rejecting the statement of Ujagar clingh a.bout the appellant's extra-judicial confession and that the extra-judicial confession together with the circumstances relied on by the High Court, fully make out the prosecution case against the appel-lant. He also urges that such portions of the report which did not amount to a direct admission of the appellant's striking Sheo Sahai with a sword and thereby Cfl,Using his death were a'1missible in evidence.

We do not consider it necessary to decide whether any portion of the report dictated by the appellant at the Police Station is admissible or not in evidence, as there is good independent evidence with respect to the four matters mentioned in the report and relied on by the High Court in consider-ing the case against the appellant. These admis-sions of the appellant are (i) that he purchased a cycle from the deceased; (ii) that there was a qufl,rrel in a play of cards; (iii) that he purchased a sword;

and (iv) that he deposited the sword at the Police Station, Ajit Singh, P.W., 5 deposed about the purchase Ram SV.th of the cycle and about a Jispute taking place bet-

v. ween Sheo Sahai and the appellant on account of Stolt of the latter's demanding the return of Rs. IO/- which Utldr Pracksh

had been paid tO\l'ards the sale price as the bale.no' R,.gJulhar Da;1al .1. of the sale price had not bel'n paid and the deal

was cancelled by Sheo SBhai in accordance with tho oral contract. Ajit Singh bears no enmity with the appdlant. In fa.et, none of the prosecution witneBSes is alleged to bear enmity with the appel-lant.

Paley Sir.gh, P.W. 2, and Baij Nath P.W. 4 depose about the dispute during the game of card~ pla.yed 011 June 12, 1960.

Kehar Singh P.W.3. deposed about the selling of a. sword to the appella.nt on June 13, 1960. A receipt ab cut tl•e snl<' was found on the pe1 son of th1• appellant when he was searc:ht•d after his arrest.

The a.ppellant'a depositing the sword at the Police Station is rlcposed by Madho Ram P.W.12, and by Sri Kisha.n Singh, Station Officer, Ekdil, (P.W.16), in whose presence the appellant had dicta-ted the report.

Tt iR tht'r<'fore not necessa.rv to relv on the admiRRinns of tht' appellant in the report with res-Pf'Ct to theRe facts d1·n0Rt'Cl to by the varioua witneR- ~t'R whose testimon~· has been rightly ar,cepted. We need also ron~idt'r whether the fa.eta that th<> nccURl'rl had a mntive to harm Sheo Sa.ha.i and thnt h" bad purrhAAed a. Rwnrd ' day before the incident. and dt'posited it Rta.ined wit.b human blood at the Police Station on the night of the murdrr arc sufficient to establish that it must be the appellant who committed the murcler of Shen Saha.i or not, as we are of opinion that the Hi11;h Court t'fred in rejecting the statement of Ujagar Singh about the appellant's confeSBing to him that he had murdered Sheo Sahai.

In this connection, the High Court simply 1961 said: liam •• Singh

"A perusal of the statement of Ujagar Stat, of Singh would show that it is very likely that Uttar Pradesh this may have happened. To us, it seems that Raghubar Dayal J in the middle of June when the chari and sugar-cane crop would not have been very high, it seems improbable that Ujagar Singh would have been sleeping in bis field or that he·should have met the appellant in the man-ner alleged. We do not feel sure of the extra judicial confession said to have been made by the appellant to Uja.gar Singh, and consequen-tly we do not place Pny reliance on his state-ment, though it has been relied upon by the court below." · With respect to the learned Judges, these observa· tions are not very consistent. If Ujagar Singh's state-ment made it v.ery likely that what he stated did happen, there could not have appeared any impro-bability in Ujagar Singh's sleeping in his field and meeting the appellant in the manner' alleged, especially when the learned Judges believed, and there was evidence about it, that the fields had chari and sugur-cane crop at the time. The learned Judges have not stated those considerations. if any, in addition to the improbability of Ujagar Singh's presence in his field on account of the crops being not very high, which made them doubt the appel-lant's confessing to Ujagar Singh. It may be men-tioned that Ujagar Singh was on the field, accord-ing to his statement, for protecting tho crop from the dopradations of neel gais. They damage the leaves of tho plants and have no partiality for tall plants alone.. In fact, the smaller the plants, the easier it must be to graze.

The learn.ed Sessions Judge has discussed the criticism urged before him against the acceptance of the statement of Ujagar Singh and considered 1961 it, for reasons given, not to justify the rejection of Rom SU.,h Ujagar Singh's Rtatement. We agree with thoso rea-

•• sons. There is no enmity between Ujagar Singh and Siat.. of the appellant and therefore no good reasons exist-Utlc.r Pr~sh

ed for l!jagar Singh to state falsely. Extra-judicial confessions are not usually <'onsidercd with favour but that does not mean that such a confeBBion com-ing from a person who has no reason to state falsely and to whom it is made in circumstances which tend to support his statement, should not be be-lic·re:l.

The murder was committed in the month of June. Both on account of the temperature and on account of the culprit's desire to wash of blood marks on his pnson, the appellant's hathin~ in the Canal at that hour of tho night cannot he said to be improbable. It is not stat~d by sub-Inspe<tor Kishan Singh, nor it is allc!!'ed that the appellant had on his person or on his clothes blood stainB wh•Jn hP presented himself at the Police Station. This tends to support Ujagar Singh's statement that the appellnnt had a bath in the Canal at that hour. Of course, this consideration springs out of the sup-position that the appellant did commit the murder. Tho fact that he had the sword which was stained with human blood, leads to such a supposition, even if t.h!l mere poll!lession of a sword so stained be not sufficient to establish conclusively that the person who possessed it so •hortly after the murder of a person with whom ho hat! enmity, had eommitt~d tho murder.

The Canal runs beside Ujagar Singh's field. uj,i,~ar Sirn;h was on th!l field for the purpose of w.i.tching it agaimt the neel g.1is trespassing and grazing the crop. H is not therefore a matter of surpriHe that he wakes up and proceeds to the spot from where the splashing sound which, i:i supposed to be due to th•i wading of the neel gais, cJ.m9. On reaching the Cane.I bank, he observes the person bathing and naturally asks him what 1981 le<l him to have a. bath at that hour at night. Rom •• Singh Take11 by surprise, it is not unlikely that the Stat~ of appellant should have made a statement that he had Uttar Prar/e;~ committed the marder cf Sheo Sahai and was, thereafter, having a bath. There is no reason tci think that the appelhnt would not make such a str1tement when the appellant himself proceeds to the Police Statitm and hands over the blood stained sword. It is no doubt unusual, as urged for the appellant, that a person who commits a murder in pursuance of an enmity arising out of minor dis-putes, would be feeling so justified in his conduct as to openly admit it to the first person he met and to go to the Police Station and report about it.

It is alwa.ys difficult, to fiurl reasons for a person's acting in a certain manner. It may be that having blurted out the tmth to Ujagar Singh, when taken by s•1rprise, the appellant thought the best thing to be to proceed to the Police Station and r"port the matter there.

It is true that Ujagar Singh did not rush to the village at once and convey the news of the murder of Sheo Sahai. The learner! Sessions Judge haq considered the criticism against such a conduct and has held that there were good reasons for Ujagar Singh's not leaving his field whose crops he was watching against the neel gais. We agree with the view of the learned Sessions Judge and do not consider Ujagar Singh's conduct of continuing to remain on his field during the night to be so improbable as to affect his veracity. Ujagar Singh went to the village at about 5 a.m., and then told the people of what he had been told by the appellant. This statement of his, is supported impliedly by Paley Singh, P.W. 2, who states that the Sub-Inspector was not present when Ujagar Singh related to them the fact which ha.d taken pla.ce at night and by Bishram Singh, P. W.13, who 1961 deposed that l:Tjagar Singh stated that Ram Singh 1r.ms;y. wa.e taking hie bath at night in the Canal Distri·

v. butory and had said that he had come after com-Stall 4/ uu ... P.•i<•h mitting the murder of Sheo Sahai and that the

appellant had then proceeded towards the police station.

We a.re therefore of opinion that Ujagar Singh's statement about the appellant's confel!tling to him that he ba.d ·murdered Sht!O Sahai has been erroneously rejected by the High Court. The extra-judicial confeBBion of the appellant to Ujagar Singh finds ample support from the facts that the appellant did purchase a sword a day before, that that very sword was found to bo stained with human blood shortly after the murder and that that sword was handed over by the appellant himself to the Polioe Officer at the Police Station.

The evidence of the appellant's having enmity with Sheo Sahai, the appellant's conduct in purohasing a sword and deliyering it stained with human blood to the Police and the appel-lant's confeBBion to Ujagar Singh, fully establish that the appellant did oommit the murder of Sheo Sahai. We are therefore of opinion that he has been rightly convicted of the offence under s. 302, I.P.C., and has been awarded the proper sentence. We therefore dismiBB the appeal.

A~z; d~mi«Sl d.