http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 13  

PETITIONER: NISHI KANT JHA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF BLIHAR

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/12/1968

BENCH: MITTER, G.K. BENCH: MITTER, G.K. HIDAYATULLAH, M. (CJ) SHAH, J.C. RAMASWAMI, V. GROVER, A.N.

CITATION:  1969 AIR  422            1969 SCR  (1)1033  1969 SCC  (1) 347  CITATOR INFO :  F          1969 SC 956  (9)  F          1971 SC  44  (42)  E&D        1974 SC 699  (8)  R          1976 SC1797  (6)  E          1978 SC 315  (19)  R          1978 SC1096  (7)  R          1978 SC1183  (22)

ACT: Evidence-Statement  made to village Mukhiya  before  accused handed  over to police-Whether admissible-Statement  whether to be acted upon as a whole.

HEADNOTE: The appellant was charged for the murder of a fellow student in a railway compartment.  The appellant was noticed washing blood-stained clothes, and bathing in a river.  He was taken to the village Mukhiya, where he made a statement and signed it.   In  this statement, he admitted his  presence  at  the scene  of murder but stated that the crime was committed  by someone  else,  that  he was injured   by   the   knife   of assailant when he tried to prevent the crime, and that  when the  assailant jumped off the train he ’followed suit  being apprehensive of arrest on the charge of murder.  Thereafter, the  appellant  was  handed over to the  police.   A  blood- stained  knife,  which could be the cause  of  the  victim’s injuries,  was  found on his person.  Only an  incised  skin deep injury, which could not account for the profuse  blood- stains  on  the clothes was found on him.  In his  statement under  s.  342 C.P.C. the appellant denied  all  connections with the crime stating that he was injured at another  place in  a  scuffle--blood-staining his clothes,  books  etc.  he admitted  being taken to the Mukhias house, and stated  that he  had  signed a blank paper there on being  assaulted  and threatened,  but he denied making the statement  in  writing ascribed  to  him.  In appeal to this Court,  the  appellant contended  that  the  statement’  recorded  by  the  village Mukhiya  before handing over the appellant to   the   police

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 13  

was   inadmissible   in  evidence; and  if  admissible,  the statement had to be taken as a whole, and one portion of  it could   not  be  acted  upon  while  rejecting  the   other. Dismissing the appeal,     HELD:  (i)  The contention that the statement   was  not voluntarily  made  and  as such could  not  be  admitted  in evidence  must be rejected. No suggestion had been  made  to any  one of the persons who had taken the appellant  to  the Mukhiya and had been tendered for cross-examination that any one  of  them  had  assaulted the  appellant.  nor  was  any suggestion  made  that  the appellant had  been  coerced  or threatened  with dire consequences, if he did not  make  the statement.  The appellant’s  own version that he was made to give  his  signature on a blank piece of paper cuts  at  the root of his case that he made  a statement  as a result of a threat or assault, for in that case, all that was  necessary was to get his signature. [1041 E-G]     (ii) In the circumstances of this case, the  exculpatory part  of  the statement made before the Mukhiya   being  not only  inherently  improbable but also  contradicted  by  the other  evidence   was rightly rejected and  the  inculpatory part was rightly accepted. [1047 D]     Rex  v. Clewes, 4 Car. & P. 221; Hanumant v. ’The  State of Madhya Pradesh, [1952] S.C.R. 1091; Palvinder Kaur v. The State  of  Punjab, [1953] S.C.R. 94, Emperor  v.  Balmakund, I.L.R.   52  All.  1011  and Narain Singh v.  The  State  of Punjab, [1963] 3 S.C.R. 678; referred to. 1034

JUDGMENT: CRIMINAl  APPELLATE JURISDICTION:Criminal Appeal No. 190  of 1966.     Appeal  by  special leave from the  judgment  and  order dated  February  4,  1966  of the  Patna   High   Court   in Government Appeal No. 14 of 1963. B.P. Singh and S.N. Prasad, for the appellant. A.S.R. Chari and U.P. Singh, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mitter,   J.    The   main   question   involved   in   this appeal is, whether the statement of the appellant   recorded by      a  village Mukhiya before he was handed over to  the police is        admissible in evidence; and if so,  whether the  court  could  reject a  part thereof and  rely  on  the remainder  along  with other evidence adduced  to  hold  him guilty  of  an offence he was charged  with.   The  evidence against  the appellant was all circumstantial and there  can be  no doubt that if the statement before the Mukhiya is  to be  left out of consideration, the appellant cannot be  held guilty.     The  appellant who was a student of a school in   Jhajha was charged with the murder of a fellow student of the  same school  and robbing him of the sum of Rs. 34 On October  12, 1961.   The  Additional  Sessions  Judge,  Santal   Parganas acquitted the appellant of both the charges but, in  appeal, the High Court found him guilty of the charge of murder  and sentenced  him to imprisonment for life.  The appellant  has come up to this  Court  by  special leave.     The case of the prosecution leading to the  discovery of the  murder  and arrest of  the  appellant is  as   follows. When    the  Barauni-Sealdah  passenger   reached   Madhupur station  at  about 3.52 p.m. on 12th October 1961  the  dead body  of a person was discovered in the lavatory of a  first class  compartment  of that train.  One Anil Kumar  Roy  who

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 13  

wanted to board the said compartment at Jasidih station  (in between  Jhajha and Madhupur) could not get the door  opened and  had  to board another compartment.  The dead  body  was found with the neck cut and besmeared with blood.  Blood was coming  out from the veins of the neck and there was  plenty of  it  on  the floor of the lavatory. The  clothes  of  the deceased  and  his  belongings  like a   comb,  handkerchief were  also blood-stained and there were finger marks in  the lavatory.  Photographs of the deceased were taken and  later the  body  was identified as that of Jai  Prakash  Dubey,  a student  of  class X-B Science of Jhajha  High  School.  The post-mortem  report showed that there were no less than  six incised  injuries caused by some sharp cutting weapon.   The injuries  were  homicidal  and death was caused by  bleeding and shock 1035     The appellant was noticed by  one  Ram  Kishore   Pandey (P.W.  17)  washing blood-stained clothes with soap  in  the river  patro about one hour before sunset on  12th   October 1961. Pandey noticed that the left hand of the appellant was cut  and he questioned the appellant as to how he  had  got’ his clothes bloodstained.  The appellant’s version was  that when he was coming from the side of Gangamarni a cow boy had assaulted  him  and cut his finger with glass  and  snatched away  his  money.  Reaching his  house  in  village  Saptar, Pandey   mentioned  this  to Shiv Shankar Pandey,  P.W.  25. Shiv  Shankar Pandey learnt from his eider  brother,  Basdeo that  a murder had been committed in  the Barauni train  and the  murderer   was   missing.   They  suspected  that   the appellant might be the murderer and decided to go and search for  him.   All the three along with Pathal Turi  and   one, Ayodhya Turi, two chowkidars went to the bank of that  river but  could not find the appellant.  There they were told  by Jaganath  Mahto and Rameshwar Mahto (P.Ws. 19 and  20)  that they  had noticed a man with wet clothes asking the  way  to Deoghar. Proceeding-further, this group of persons found the appellant  about  a  mile from  Titithapur  going  behind  a bullock cart.  On being accosted the appellant said that  he was  going to village Roshan to his sister’s place and  that he  had  not committed any  murder. The appellant  was  then wearing a pair of trousers and a shirt and had with him some books. an exercise book, a chhura  (knife) besides a pair of trousers and a shirt which were both wet.  They  apprehended the  appellant and took him to village Saptar.  They  called on the Sarpanch of the village who directed them to take the appellant  to the Mukhiya not making any   enquiry   himself The Mukhiya’s place in Lorajore was at a distance of about a mile  from  Saptar.  The party reached there at about  9  O’ clock at night and stayed there for 2 or 3 hours.  At  about midnight  on  12th October 1961 the Mukhiya  took  down  the statement (Ex. 6) of the appellant and directed the party to take the appellant to the police station.  The party reached Madhupur  police   station  at about 5 a.m. on  October  13, 1961.  Brij  Bihari  Pathak,  Sub Inspector of Police  (P.W. 39) seized the articles which the appellant had with him  in the  presence of two witnesses and prepared a seizure  list. The  articles  seized from the accused included a  shirt,  a pair  of  trousers,  a  leather belt, a  pair  of  shoes,  4 bloodstained  copy  books,  two books, pages  of  one  being blood-stained.  He  also prepared an injury  report  of  the appellant  and  sent him to a doctor for  examination.   The officer  in charge of the  Railway Police Station  Madhupur, Gorakh   Prasad   Singh  (P.W.  511)  proceeded   with   the investigation, took charge of various articles found in  the compartment  of  the Barauni passenger, received  the  post-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 13  

mortem report, examined witnesses and sent all the  material exhibits  to  the Chemical Examiner  for   examination   and report.  The  report of the Chemical  Examiner  showed  that among  the 1036 articles found with the appellant Nishi Kant Jha and sent up for examination the following were stained with human blood: (1) leather belt cutting (2) cuttings of underwear, trousers and shirt (3) pair of chappal (4) portion of a shoe (5)  one big  knife  and (6) several books, papers  and  an  exercise book.  The report also showed that sample of blood found  on the deceased was of the same group as that of the appellant.     The appellant pleaded not guilty.  Before taking a  note of  his  statement  under s. 342 of  the  Code  of  Criminal Procedure, it will be useful to reproduce his statement  Ex. 6   recorded   by Mukhiya at Lorajore before he  was  handed over to the police. The statement reads:                     "I  am Nishi Kant Jha, son  of  Nilkanth               Jha,  resident of Baburpur, P.S. Jasidih  sub-               division  Deoghar, District Santhai  Parganas.               To-day   12-10-61   at  about   12   midnight,               chowkidars  Pathal  Turi and Ayodhya  Turi  of               village   Saptar  and  Sheo  Shankar   Pandey,               Ram  Kishore Pandey and Basudeo Pandey of  the               same  village arrested me and brought me.   My               statement  is  that when I boarded  the  first               class  compartment  in  Barauni  passenger  at               Jhajha,  an unknown person was sitting  in  it               when  the  train reached near   Simultala  and               when  it  stopped  there,  Lal  Mohan  Sharma,               resident  of  Deoghar, P.S. Deoghar,  district               Dumka  entered into  that compartment.  I  had               been  knowing him from before. When the  train               stopped at the Jasidih station and when I went               to get down, Lal Mohan Sharma who had  boarded               the  train at Simultala, did not allow  me  to               get  down  at the Jasidih station.   When  the               train  moved ahead of Jasidih station, in  the               meanwhile Lal Mohan Sharma took that  outsider               into  the lavatory and began to beat him.   At               this I caught hold of his hand, as a result of               which  my  left fore-finger got  injured  with               knife.  Thereupon he asked me to  be  careful.               Then,  on being afraid, I sat quietly in  that               very  compartment.  He  further  said  that  I               should  not  open the door and window  of  the                             compartment  and  if  would do so  I would  be               inviting death.  At that very time, he  killed               him.   When   the  train  was  reaching   near               Mathurapur,  he jumped down from  the  running               train  and fled away.  Lal Mohan  Sharma  fled               away.   also jumped down on the other side  of               Patro  river near Madhupur and fled  away   in               order  to save my life, because I  apprehended               that   I would be the only person  who   would               be   arrested.  Thereafter,  I  came  to   the               village Ratu Bahiar lying by the side of Patro               river  and  afterwards I took  my  clothes  to               Patro  river  and  washed them  with  a  soap.               Mean- 1037               while  a  bullock cart was going  to  Deoghar.               Therefore I sat on that very bullock cart  and               started for Deoghar. After I had covered about

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 13  

             a  mile,  Pathal  Turi,  Shanker  Pandey,  Ram               Kishore  Pandey, Ayodhya Turi,  the  chowkidar               and  Rameshwar  Mahto  got me  down  from  the               bullock cart and brought before you.  I   know               their  names  after enquiring  the  same  from               them."     At the end of the  statement  there  was an  endorsement reading:       "On  my  understanding  my  statement,  I   affix   my signature." The  signature  appearing  thereunder was  admitted  by  the appellant  to be his beating date 12th October  1961.   From the said statement the following emerge:     (1 ) The appellant had boarded a first class compartment in Barauni passenger at Jhajha already occupied by a  person not known to him.     (2)  When the train reached  Simultala  one  Lal   Mohan Sharma, resident of Deoghar entered that compartment     (3  )  When the train proceeded further and  stopped  at Jasidih  station, the appellant wanted to get down  but  was prevented from doing so by Lal Mohan.     (4)  After  the  train moved out of  Jasidih  Lal  Mohan caught  hold  of the first occupant of the  compartment  and took him into the lavatory and started beating him.     (5) The appellant wanted to prevent this and in   trying to catch hold of the assailant’s hand he was  injured  by  a knife.  Thereafter he took no further steps to  prevent  the commission of the crime.     (6)  Lal Mohan Sharma threatened him with death in  case he wanted to open the door or the window of the  compartment and killed the stranger.     (7)  When the train was reaching Mathurapur  Lal   Mohan jumped out of it and ran away.     (8) The appellant also jumped out of the train after  it had  crossed the river Patro near Madhupur and fled away  to save his life because he was apprehensive of being  arrested as the only person left in the compartment.     (9)  He went to the village Ratu Bahiar near  the  river Patro and washed his clothes in the river with a soap.     (10)  Thereafter he took a tide in a bullock cart  going to  Deoghar  but  after  covering  a  mile  or  so  he   was apprehended  by  Pathal Turi, Shanker  Pandey,  Ram  Kishore Pandey,  Ayodhya Turi, the chowkidar and Rameshwar Mahto. 1038     On  the face of it the statement goes to show  that  the appellant was present in the compartment when the murder was committed  by  Lal Mohan Sharma, that he did  not  know  the victim,  that the murder was committed after the  train  had left  Jasidih  station, that he himself was  prevented  from getting  out  of the train at Jasidih, that he  suffered  an injury  on  his  left  fore-finger from  the  knife  of  the assailant and that he jumped out of the train near the river Patro.   He did not mention  having  been  accosted  by  Ram Kishore Pandey while he was washing his clothes in the river nor  did  he make any statement to the effect  that  he  had received the injury as a result of a scuffle with a cow boy.     At  the trial evidence was adduced by the Headmaster  of the  school that Jai Prakash Dubey, the victim, was  an  old student  while the appellant had joined that school  in  the month of March 1961.  They belonged to the same standard but were not in the same section inasmuch as one was in the arts section  while  the other was in the science  section.   The headmaster  deposed  to the fact that both of them  used  to play football and that no enmity was known to exist  between the two.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 13  

   In  his  statement under s. 342 Cr. P.C.  the  appellant said  that  he  could not identify the  photographs  of  the victim  as  those of Jai Prakash Dubey and that he  did  not know  Jai  Prakash  Dubey. He did not board  a  first  class compartment of Barauni passenger at Jhajha, that he did  not jump  off  the  train  when it  was  nearing  Madhupur.   He admitted  having  washed his blood-stained  clothes  in  the river  Patro  near  the village of Ratu Bahiar  and  that  a person had enquired of him the reason for his clothes  being stained  with  blood.   He did not admit that  he  had  told anyone that while coming from the side of Gangamarni he  had been  assaulted  by some herdsman and cut  his  finger  with glass  and said that his reply to the query was that he  had an  altercation with a herdsman on his asking about the  way when  the  latter wanted to assault him with  a  sharp-edged knife  and on his catching hold of it he had cut  his  hand. He denied having enquired of anybody about the  way  leading to Deoghar and he also denied that he was arrested while  he was  a  mile  ahead  of  village   Titithapur  following   a bullock’ cart.  He admitted having held in his hand  clothes which had been washed in the river and blood-stained  ’books and   copy  books, pages of some of the books  being  blood- stained.  He did not admit that he had with him a knife when he  was  arrested. He admitted having  been   taken  to  the house  of    the  Mukhiya, Sudama Raut but his  version  was that  when he     reached  there they all began to beat  him and  told him that he  must  make  a statement as  suggested by  them.  With regard to Ex. 6 his version was that it  was not  his  statement  but that he had been made  to  put  his signature  on a piece of’ blank paper which was  later  made use of as his statement.  He denied that the writing of the 1039 endorsement  ascribed  to him was his.  His account  of  the activities.  on that day was ’as follows.  He had boarded  a third  class compartment in Toofan Express on  12th  October 1961  intending  to  pay a visit to  his  father’s  sister’s daughter  at   Roshan  and thereafter going  to  his  native place.  He had reached Madhupur at about 12.30 p.m. and left for  Roshan.   He had lost his way after some  distance  and enquired  of some herdsmen about  the way to  the  village., These herdsmen started to abuse him for having lost his way. On his remonstration, a scuffle took place. At this point of time  another  herdsman  appeared with  a  lathi  which  was shining  like glass and wanted to assault him with this.  On his catching hold of the lathi he got his hand cut which was bleeding. His clothes and books also got stained with  blood whereupon  the herdsman ran away.  He purchased a  soap  and went  to wash his clothes in Patro river and take his  bath. People who met him there had asked. him about his injury and he   had  given  them  the  version  just   now   mentioned. Thereafter when he was nearing the village, Roshan a  number of  persons came and apprehended him on a charge of  murder. They  took  him to the Mukhiya’s house at 8.30 p.m.  in  the night  and  kept him  there assaulting him with  lathis  and slaps.   The Mukhiya had asked him to confess his guilt  and give a statement and on his refusing to do so, he was  again assaulted and  threatened  with  death. Through fear he  had affixed his signature on a blank paper.     On the evidence the High Court found that the train  had left Jasidih at 3.23 p.m. its next halt being Madhupur where it  reached  at  3.52  p.m.  The  door  of  a  first   class compartment  was  found closed at Jasidih and could  not  be opened.   In  the  view of the High  Court  the  murder  was committed  in  the lavatory of the first  class  compartment between  Jasidih and Madhupur.  On a close scrutiny  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 13  

evidence  adduced,  the  High  Court  found  the   following incriminating circumstances against the appellant :--     (a) Only about two hours after the murder i.e. between 5 to 6 p.m. he was seen washing his blood-stained ,,clothes on the bank of the river Patro.     (b)  At  the  time of his apprehension  by  Ram  Kishore Pandey  and  others he was  holding  blood-stained  exercise books,  and  other  books some of  the  pages  being  blood- stained.     (c)  He  also  had with him at that time  a  knife  ’the length of the blade and the handle of which was about 9".     (d)  According to the medical evidence the injuries.  of the  victim could have been caused by that knife ,which  was in  the  possession  of the, appellant   ....   One  of  the horizontal’. incised inJuries i.e. injury No. 6, was 5" x 2" x’3/4’’. 6 Sup. CI/69--15 1040     (e)  The left hand of the respondent was noticed with  a cut  injury  at the bank of the said river.   The  marks  of other injuries on the body of the appellant were  compatible with  a  scuffle with the victim in the compartment  of  the train.     (f) The explanation of the appellant with regard to  the possession  of  blood-stained clothes and articles  and  the injury on his body,was not acceptable.     In  the light of the above  incriminating  circumstances culled from the evidence, the acceptance of the statement of the  appellant in Ex. 6 that he had travelled together  with an  unknown  person,  later identified  as  the  victim  Jai Prakash  Dubey in  the same compartment would be  conclusive to prove the guilt of the appellant if his further statement in  Ex.  6  about the part played by  Lal  Mohan  Sharma  be rejected.   The appellant had admitted his presence  on  the scene  of the murder, but it was his version that the  crime was  committed  by  someone  else while  he  himself  was  a helpless spectator.  When the assailant jumped off the train he followed suit being apprehensive of arrest on the  charge of  murdering the unknown person.  He had done so  near  the river Patro.  Some portions of the statement were not  found to  be acceptable.  It is not possible to believe  that   if Lal   Mohan  Sharma  wanted to commit the  murder  he  would prevent the appellant from getting off the train at  Jasidih so  as to have a witness who knew his name and  address  and testify to his commission of the crime. Lal Mohan Sharma was not  in the train at Jhajha and no details were given  about any quarrel between him and the victim which might lead  the former to make the  attack on Jai Prakash.  Apparently there was   no  motive  for Lal Mohan Sharma’s commission  of  the crime.   Again it is not possible to believe that Lal  Mohan Sharma  should not have tried to do away with the  appellant also.  The version of the appellant receiving the injury  on his   left  hand  in  the  railway  compartment   was   also unbelievable.  So  was  his  story of  a  scuffle  with  the herdsman and cutting his hand as a result thereof. The cause for the herdsmen abusing the appellant and his  remonstrance followed  by  an  attack  on his person  all  appear  to  be imaginary.  The only incised injury which the appellant  had suffered  was skin deep and it is impossible to  accept  the story   that  the  bleeding  was  so  profuse  as  to   have necessitated  his  washing his shirt and  trousers   in  the river.  Nor  does  such  an injury  account  for  the  other articles  like his belt, shoes and books being stained  with blood  which  was sought to be removed by washing.     The contention urged on behalf of the appellant that the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 13  

statement was not voluntarily made and as such could not  be admitted  in  evidence  was rightly  rejected  by  the  High Court,. The High. 1041 Court  noted that no suggestion had been made to any one  of the  persons who had taken the appellant to the Mukhiya  and had been tendered for cross-examination that any of them had assaulted the appellant nor was any suggestion made that the appellant   had  been  coerced  or  threatened   with   dire consequences  if  he  did  not  make  the  statement.    The appellant’s  own  version  that  he was  made  to  give  his signature on a blank’ piece of paper cuts at the root of his case  that  he made a statement as a result of a  threat  or assault, for in that case, all that was necessary was to get his signature.     A  point  was  sought  to be made  by  counsel  for  the appellant  ,that  the footprints and finger  prints  in  the lavatory  of the  first class compartment taken at  Madhupur station  were  found  to  be different  from  those  of  the appellant  and  that this went to show  that  the  appellant could  not  have been the murderer.  The High  Court  turned down  this contention on the ground that before  the  police took  charge  of the situation many people had  entered  the compartment of the train and the above difference  therefore was not a factor on which any reliance could be placed.     The  High Court found that the appellant’s version  that he did not know the victim unacceptable. His version in  Ex. 6  as to how he came to sustain his cut injury was  entirely different  from  that given in his statement under  s.  342. The High Court also could not accept his version that he had lost  his way to his sister’s village at Roshan and that  he had  suffered an injury in the way suggested by him  in  his statement under s. 342. But however grave the  incriminating circumstances  against  the appellant as summarised  by  the High Court may be, they were not enough to fasten the  guilt on  the accused unless a portion of his statement Ex.  6  is pieced together with them.  It is only this statement  which contains an admission that he was travelling by the  Barauni passenger in  a compartment where he saw a murder  committed and that he had jumped out of the train near the river Patro before getting to Madhupur and the entire evidence minus the unacceptable  portion  of  Ex. 6 lead  to  the  irresistible conclusion of  the  appellants guilt.     It  was contended before us by learned counsel  for  the appellant that if the statement is to be considered at  all, it must be taken as a whole and the Court could not act upon one portion of it while rejecting the other. Counsel  sought to  rely  on  three judgments of this Court in  aid  of  his contention that a statement which contains any admission  or confession  must be considered as a whole and the  Court  is not  free to accept one part while rejecting the  rest.   In our  view,  the  proposition  stated  so  widely  cannot  be accepted.   As Taylor puts it in his Law of  Evidence  (11th edition)  Art.  725  at page 502 that  with  regard  to  the general law of admissions, the first important rule is that 1042                       "the whole statement  containing. the.               admissions must be taken together; for  though               some  part  of  it may be  favourable  to  the               party,  and  the object is only  to  ascertain               what  he has conceded  against  himself,   and               what  may  therefore be presumed to  be  true,               yet,  unless the whole is received,  the  true               meaning of the part, which is evidence against               him,  cannot  be ascertained. But  though  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 13  

             whole  of what he said at the same  time,  and               relating to the same subject, must be given in               evidence,  it  does not follow  that  all  the               parts of the ’statement should be regarded  as               equally deserving of credit; but the jury must               consider,   under the circumstances, how  much                             of  the entire statement they deem  wo rthy  of               belief,  including as well the facts  asserted               by the party in his own favour as those making               against him."               With regard to criminal cases, ,Taylor states:                      "In the proof of confessions--as in the               case  of admissions in civil causes-the  whole               of  what the prisoner said on the  subject  at               the  time of making the confession  should  be               taken together...                        But if, after the entire statement of               the  prisoner has     been given in  evidence,               the prosecutor can contradict      any part of               it,  he is at liberty to do so;  and then  the               whole testimony is left to the jury for  their               consideration,       precisely  as  in   other               cases  where  one  part  of  the  evidence  is               contradictory  to another.  Even without  such               contradiction  it is not to be  supposed  that               all   the  parts       of  a  confession   are               entitled  to equal credit.  The jury       may               believe that part which charges the  prisoner,               and       reject that which is in his  favour,               if  they  see sufficient      grounds  for  so               doing.  If  what  he said in  his  own  favour               is not contradicted by evidence offered by the               prosecutor,      nor is improbable in  itself,               it  will  be naturally  believed       by  the               jury; but they are not bound to give weight to               it       on that account, being at liberty  to               judge of it,  like      other evidence, by all               the circumstances of the case." In  Roscoe’s book on Criminal Evidence (16th  Edition,  page 52).    the  statement of law is much to  the  same  effect. Roscoe  also    cites a decision in Rex v.  Clewes(x)  where the confession of the    prisoner charged with murder  ’that he  was present at the murder  but that it was committed  by another  person and that he took no    part in it, was  left to  be considered by the jury with a direction     that  the jury might, if they thought proper, believe one part of it      (1) 4 Car. &.P,-221. 1043 and  disbelieve  another. According to  Archbold’s  Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice (Thirty-sixth Edition,  page 423):                     "In   all   cases  the  whole   of   the               confession should be given in evidence; for it               is  a  general  rule that  the  whole  of  the               account  which a party gives of a  transaction               must be taken together; and his admission of a               fact  disadvantageous to himself shall not  be               received, without ’receiving at the same  time               his   contemporaneous  assertion  of  a   fact               favourable to him, not merely as evidence that               had  made  such  assertion,  but    admissible               evidence of the matter thus alleged by him  in               his  discharge  .... It has been said that  if               there  be  no other evidence in the  case,  or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 13  

             none   which   is   incompatible   with    the               confession, it must be taken as true; but  the               better  opinion  seems to be that, as  in  the               case  of all other evidence, the whole  should               be left to the jury, to say whether the  facts               asserted  by  the prisoner in  his  favour  be               true."     In  this  case the appellant’s  statement  in’Ex.  6  on which  reliance is placed to show that the  appellant  could not  be guilty of the crime was found  wholly  unacceptable. His  version of Lal Mohan Sharma’s commission of the  crime, his  being  prevented from getting down from  the  train  at Jasidih,  Lal Mohan apparently committing the crime  forcing the appellant to be a witness to it and the latter’s version of  the  manner  in  which  he  received  the  injury   were unacceptable to the High Court and we see no reason to  come to   any  different  conclusion.  The  other   incriminating circumstances already tabulated, considered along with   the appellant’s statement that he was present in the compartment when  the  murder was committed, that he,  jumped  from  the train near the river, that he gave a different version as to how  he had received his injury, his statement that  he  had lost  his way to the village Roshan being unacceptable,  all point conclusively to having-committed the murder.     There is nothing in the judgments of this Court to which reference  was  made  which.  can  help  the  appellant.  In Hanumant  v. The State of Madhya Pradesh(1) the  facts  were ’as  follows.   On  a  complaint  filed  by  the   Assistant Inspector.  General of Police, Anti  Corruption  Department, two  persons by name Nargundkar and. Patel, were  tried  for the  offence  of conspiracy to secure a  contract  of  Seoni Distillery by forging the tender Ex. P-3A and for commission of  the  offence of forgery of the ,tender  and  of  another document Ex. P-24... The’ Special Magistrate convicted  both the appellants on all the three charges.  The Sessions Judge quashed  the  conviction of both the  appellants  under  the first Charge of (1) [1952] s.c.R. 1044 Criminal  conspiracy  but  maintained  the  convictions  and sentences under s. 465 I.P.C. on the charges of forging  Ex. P-3A  and P-24. Both the appellants went up in  revision  to the High Court without any success.  Examining the  evidence in  the  appeal by special leave, this Court held  that  the peculiar features relied on by the courts below in Ex.  P-3A should be eliminated from consideration and it was held that there were really no circumstances inconsistent with Ex.  P- 3A  being  a  genuine document. In  respect  of  the  charge regarding  Ex.  P-24 the trial Magistrate and  the  Sessions Judge used the evidence of experts to arrive at the  finding that  the letter Ex. P-24 was typed on article A  which  had not  reached  Nagpur  till  the end  of  December  1946  and therefore the letter was antedated.  The High Court although of   the  view  that  the  evidence  of  the   experts   was inadmissible proceeded nevertheless to discuss it and  place some reliance on it. The lower courts held that the evidence of experts was corroborated by the statements of the accused recorded under s. 342.  In rejecting this conclusion it  was observed by this Court:                     "If  the  evidence  of  the  experts  is               eliminated,  there is no material for  holding               that  Ex.  P-24 was typed on article  A.   The               trial  Magistrate  and  the  learned  Sessions               Judge  used  part  of  the  statement  of  the               accused  for arriving at the  conclusion  that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 13  

             the letter not having been typed on article  B               must necessarily have been typed on article A.               Such  use of the statement of the accused  was               wholly unwarranted.  It is settled law that an               admission  made by a person whether  amounting               to a confession or not cannot be split up  and               part  of  it used against him.   An  admission               must be used either as a whole or not at  all.               If  the statement of the accused is used as  a               whole,    it   completely    demolishes    the               prosecution  case and, if it is. not  used  at               all,  then  there remains no material  on  the               record  from  which  any  inference  could  be               drawn  that the letter was not written on  the               date it bears  .....  we hold that there is no               evidence  whatsoever  on the record  to  prove               that  this letter Ex. P-24 was  antedated  and               that  being  so,  the  charge  in  respect  of               forgery of this letter also fails."     Learned counsel for the appellant sought to rely on  the above  statement  of law in aid of his Contention  that  the statement  in  Ex. 6 should either be taken as  a  whole  or rejected  altogether.  In our view that was  not  the  ratio decidendi in Hanumant’s case(1). As was pointed out by  this Court, with the elimination of the evidence of the  experts, there was no material for holding that Ex. (1) [1952] s.c.R. 1045 P-24  was  typed  on article A  and  consequently  the  only evidence  on  the  subject being in  the  statement  of  the accused  a part of it could not be relied on  leaving  apart the exculpatory part.     This is made more clear in the next case which was cited by  learned  counsel.   In Palvinder Kaur v.  The  State  of Punjab(x)  ’the  appellant  was  tried  for  offences  under sections  302 and 201, Indian Penal Code in connection  with the charge of ’murder of her husband.  She was convicted  by the  Sessions   Judge   under  s. 302  but  no  verdict  was recorded regarding the charge under s. 201.  On appeal,  the High  Court  acquitted  her  of the  charge  of  murder  but convicted her under s. 201 I.P.C.  With regard to this,  the High Court held that the most-important piece of evidence in support thereof was the confession made  by  the   appellant which  though  retracted was corroborated on this  point  by independent  evidence so as to establish the  charge.   This Court   held  that  there  was  no  evidence  to   establish affirmatively that the death of the appellant’s husband  was caused  by poisoning and that being so the charge  under  s. 201   I.P.C.  also must fail. According to this  Court,  the High Court in reaching a contrary conclusion not only  acted on suspicions and conjectures but on inadmissible  evidence. ,With regard to the alleged confession of the appellant,  it was  held  that  the High Court not only  was  in  error  in treating the same as evidence in the case but was further in error in accepting a part of it after finding that the  rest of it was false. In that case, the evidence showed that  the body  of  the appellants husband was found in  a  trunk  and discovered in a well and that the accused had taken part  in the  disposal of the body but there was no evidence to  show the  cause of his death or the manner and  circumstances  in which it came about. Referring to the decision of Hanumant’s case(2)  it was reiterated that the Court cannot accept  the inculpatory  part of a statement and reject the  exculpatory part.  The  Court also referred to the observations  of  the Full  Bench  of  the Allahabad. High  Court  in  Emperor  v.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 13  

Balmakund(3) and fully concurred therein.     In  the Allahabad case the question  referred   to   the Full   Bench  was,  whether  the  court  could  accept   the inculpatory part of a confession which commended belief  and reject the exculpatory part which was inherently incredible. On   reference  to  a large number of authorities cited  the Full  Bench   observed   that  these  authorities   actually established no more than this that (a) where there is  other evidence,  a portion of the confession may in the  light  of that  evidence; be rejected while acting upon the  remainder with the other evidence; and (b) where there is no other  (1)  [1953].S.C.R.  94.                (:2)  [1952]  S.C.R. 1091. I.L.R. 52 Allahabad 1011. 1046 evidence  and  the  exculpatory  element  is-not  inherently incredible  ;,  the  court  cannot  accept  the  inculpatory element and reject the exculpatory element. According to the Full  Bench of the Allahabad High Court the two rules  above stated  had been applied during the last one  hundred  years and the Full Bench answered the reference by holding  "where there  is no other evidence to show affirmatively  that  any portion  of  the exculpatory element in  the  confession  is false,  the court must accept or reject the confession as  a whole ,and cannot accept only the inculpatory element  while rejecting    the   exculpatory   element   as    inherently’ incredible."     Relying on the above statement of the law it was said by this Court in Palvinder Kaur’s case(1) that no use could  be made of her statement contained in the alleged confession to prove that the death of her husband was caused by  poisoning or as a result of an offence having been committed and  once this. confession was excluded altogether, there remained  no evidence  for holding that her husband had died as a  result of the administration of potassium cyanide.     The last decision of this Court referred to by  counsel, viz.  Narain  Singh v. The State of Punjab(2) does  not  add anything which need be taken note of to the propositions  of law laid down in the above-mentioned case.     In  this case the exculpatory part of the  statement  in Ex. 6 is not only inherently improbable but is  contradicted by the  other evidence.  According to this statement,   the’ injury  which  the  appellant received  was  caused  by  the appellant’s  attempt to catch hold of the hand of Lal  Mohan Sharma  to  prevent  the  attack on  the  victim.  This  was contradicted  by the statement of the accused himself  under s.  342  Cr. P.C. to the effect that he  had  recceived  the injury in a scuffle with a herdsman. The injury found on his body when he was examined by the doctor on 13th October 1961 negatives  both  these versions. Neither of  these  versions accounts  for the profuse bleeding which led to his  washing his clothes and having a bath in the river Patro, the amount of  bleeding  and the washing of the  bloodstains  being  so considerable  as  to  affact the attention  of  Ram  Kishore Pandey, P.W. 17 and asking him about the cause thereof.  The bleeding was nora simple one as his clothes all got  stained with blood as also his books, his exercise book and his belt and shoes.  More than that the knife which was discovered on his  person  was  found  to have  been  stained  with  blood according to the report of the Chemical Examiner.  According to  the  postmortem report this knife could  have  been  the cause  of the injuries on the victim. In circumstances  like these there (1) [1953] S.C.R.94.             (2) [1963] 3 S.C.R. 678 1047 being  enough evidence to reject  the. exculpatory  part  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 13  

the  statement of the appellant in Ex. 6 the High Court  had acted rightly in accepting the inculpatory part and  piecing the same with the other evidence to come to. the conclusion. that the appellant was the person responsible for the crime.     The  appeal  therefore  fails  and  the  conviction  and sentence are upheld- y.p.                                   Appeal dismissed. 1048