http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: RAM SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/12/1961

BENCH: DAYAL, RAGHUBAR BENCH: DAYAL, RAGHUBAR DAS, S.K. SUBBARAO, K.

CITATION:  1967 AIR  152            1962 SCR  (2) 203

ACT:      Criminal          Trial-Murder-Extra-judicial confession-Reliability of.

HEADNOTE:      The appellant was tried for murder. The facts established were  that there were quarrels between the appellant  and the  deceased over the purchase of a  cycle and  in  a  play  of  cards  that  the appellant had  purchased a sword a day earlier and that he had deposited the sword stained with human blood at  the police  station  shortly  after  the murder. Evidence was also led of an extra-judicial confession made  by the appellant to one U but the High Court  did not place reliance on it as it did not feel  sure of  it though  it observed  that  a perusal of  the statement  of U showed that it was very likely that what he stated may have happened. ^      Held, that  the statement  of U regarding the extra-judicial confession was erroneously rejected by the High Court. Extra-judicial confessions were not usually  considered with  favour  but  such  a confession coming  from a person who had no reason to state  falsely and  to  whom  it  was  made  in circumstances  which   tended   to   support   his statement could be relied upon. The extra-judicial confession in  the present  case was  supported by the facts  established, and  these together  fully established the guilt of the appellant.

JUDGMENT:      CRIMINAL  APPELLATE   JURISDICTION:  Criminal Appeal 89 of 1961.      Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated  December 8,  1960, of  the  Allahabad High Court  in Criminal  Appeal No. 1782 of 60 and Referred No. 125 of 1960,      S. K. Kapur, for the appellant,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

    G.  C.   Mathur  and   C.  P.  Lal,  for  the respondent.      1961. December  19.-The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      RAGUHBAR  DAYAL,  J.-Ram  Singh  appeals,  by special leave,  against the order of the Allahabad High Court dismissing his appeal and confirming 204 his conviction  and sentence  of death,  under  s. 302, I.P.C., by the Session Judge, Etawah.      The prosecution  case, in  brief, is that due to enmity,  the appellant  caused injuries to Sheo Sahai, who  was sleeping  in his  cattle  shed  in village Bhadurpur Ghar, with a sword at about mid- night on  the night between June 14-15, 1960. Sheo Sahai died of the injuries received. The appellant thereafter proceeded  to the Canal Distributory at some distance  from the  village and  had  a  bath there. Later  on, he  went to  the Police Station, Ekdil, nine  miles away  and lodged  a report.  He delivered the  sword which  has been  found by the Serologist to  be stained  with human  blood.  The appellant was  taken in custody and as a result of the investigation was sent up for trial,      The appellant  denied the  allegation that he had caused  the death  of Sheo  Sahai and  alleged that he  was falsely  accused of  the offence.  He also  denied   the  other   allegations  for   the prosecution.  He  alleged  that  one  Paley  Singh informed him  about the  murder of  Sheo Sahai and asked him  to go to the Police Station, Ekdil, and to inform  the Station  Officer orally  about  the murder. He did accordingly. He was detained at the Police Station  till 11 a.m., the next day and was then put up in the lock up. The Sub-Inspector took his 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 rightly did not accept his version.      The evidence led by the prosecution consisted of  the   evidence  relating  to  motive,  to  his extrajudicial confession  to one Ujagar Singh when he  was  having  a  bath  in  the  Canal,  to  his purchasing the  sword and  to his delivering it at the police  Station  after  he  had  dictated  the report. Both the Courts below rightly believed the evidence about  the motive  and  purchase  of  the sword by the appellant. 205 The learned  Sessions Judge  believed Ujagar Singh and acted on the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant to him. The High Court, however, did not rely  on this  extra-judicial  confession.  It relied on certain statements made by the appellant in his  report dictated  at the Police Station and considered those  facts together  with the  motive and the  evidence 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 appellant was  inadmissible  in  evidence  as  its contents amounted  to a  confession of the offence by the appellant made to a Police Officer and that the evidence  relied upon  by the  High Court  was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

insufficient 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 Singh  about 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  appellant. 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 causing his death were admissible 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   considering  the   case  against   the appellant. These  admissions of  the appellant are (i) that  he purchased  a cycle from the deceased; (ii) that  there was a quarrel in a play of cards; (iii) that  he purchased a sword; and (iv) that he deposited the sword at the Police Station. 206      Ajit  Singh,   P.W.,  5   deposed  about  the purchase of  the cycle  and about a dispute taking place between  Sheo Sahai  and  the  appellant  on account of  the latter’s  demanding the  return of Rs. 10/-  which had  been paid  towards  the  sale price as  the balance  of the  sale price  had not been paid and the deal was cancelled by Sheo Sahai in accordance  with the  oral contract. Ajit Singh bears no  enmity with the appellant. In fact, none of the  prosecution witnesses  is alleged  to bear enmity with the appellant.      Paley Singh,  P.W. 2,  and Baij  Nath P.W. 4, depose about  the dispute during the game of cards played on June 12, 1960.      Kehar Singh  P.W.3. deposed about the selling of a  sword to  the appellant  on June 13, 1960. A receipt about  the sale was found on the person of the appellant  when  he  was  searched  after  his arrest.      The appellant’s  depositing the  sword at the Police Station  is deposed  by Madho  Ram P.W. 12, and by  Sri Kishan  Singh, Station Officer, Ekdil, (P.W. 16),  in whose  presence the  appellant  had dictated the report.      It is  therefore not necessary to rely on the admissions of  the appellant  in the  report  with respect to  these facts  deposed to by the various witnesses  whose   testimony  has   been   rightly accepted.      We need  also consider whether the facts that the accused  had a  motive to  harm Sheo Sahai and that he  had purchased  a sword  a day  before the incident and deposited it stained with human blood at the  Police Station  on the night of the murder are sufficient  to establish  that it  must be the appellant who  committed the  murder of Sheo Sahai or not,  as we  are of opinion that the High Court erred in  rejecting the  statement of Ujagar Singh about the  appellant’s confessing  to him  that he

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

had murdered Sheo Sahai. 207      In this  connection, the  High  Court  simply said:           "A perusal  of the  statement of  Ujagar      Singh would  show that it is very likely that      this may  have happened. To us, it seems that      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 his field or that      he should  have  met  the  appellant  in  the      manner alleged.  We do  not feel  sure of the      extra judicial  confession said  to have been      made by  the appellant  to Ujagar  Singh, and      consequently we  do not place any reliance on      his statement, though it has been relied upon      by the court below." With  respect   to  the   learned  Judges,   these observations are  not very  consistent. If  Ujagar Singh’s statement made it very likely that what he stated did  happen, there  could not have appeared any improbability  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 sugarcane  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 appellant’s confessing to Ujagar  Singh. It  may be mentioned that Ujagar Singh  was   on  the   field,  according   to  his statement,  for   protecting  the  crop  from  the depradations of  neel gais. They damage the leaves of the  plants and  have no  partiality  for  tall plants alone. In fact, the smaller the plants, the easier it must be to graze.      The learned  Sessions Judge has discussed the criticism urged  before him against the acceptance of the statement of Ujagar Singh and considered 208 it,  for   reasons  given,   not  to  justify  the rejection of  Ujagar Singh’s  statement. We  agree with those  reasons. There  is no  enmity  between Ujagar Singh  and the  appellant and  therefore no good reasons  existed for  Ujagar Singh  to  state falsely.  Extra-judicial   confessions   are   not usually considered  with favour  but that does not mean that  such a  confession coming 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 believed.      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 person,  the appellant’s  bathing in the Canal at that hour of the night cannot be said to  be  improbable.  It  is  not  stated  by  sub- Inspector Kishan Singh, nor it is alleged that the appellant had  on his  person or  on  his  clothes blood stains  when he  presented  himself  at  the Police  Station.  This  tends  to  support  Ujagar Singh’s statement that the appellant had a bath in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

the  Canal   at  that   hour.  Of   course,   this consideration springs  out of the supposition that the appellant did commit the murder. The fact that he had  the sword  which was  stained  with  human blood, leads  to such  a supposition,  even if the mere possession  of a  sword  so  stained  be  not sufficient  to  establish  conclusively  that  the person who  possessed  it  so  shortly  after  the murder of  a person  with whom  he had enmity, had committed the murder.      The Canal  runs beside  Ujagar Singh’s field. Ujagar Singh  was on  the field for the purpose of watching it  against the neel gais trespassing and grazing the  crop. It is not therefore a matter of surprise that he wakes up and proceeds to the spot from where  the splashing sound which, is supposed to be due to the wading of the neel gais, came. On reaching the Canal bank, he observes 209 the person  bathing and  naturally asks  him what. led him  to have  a bath  at that  hour at  night. Taken by  surprise, it  is not  unlikely that  the appellant should have made a statement that he had committed  the  murder  of  Sheo  Sahai  and  was, thereafter, having  a bath.  There is no reason to think that  the appellant  would not  make such  a statement when  the appellant  himself proceeds to the  Police  Station  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 disputes,  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 always  difficult to find reasons for a person’s acting in a certain manner. It may  be that  having blurted  out the  truth to Ujagar  Singh,   when  taken   by  surprise,   the appellant thought  the best thing to be to proceed to the Police Station and report 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 learned Sessions Judge has  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 them  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 had taken place  at night  and by  Bishram Singh, P.W. 13, who 210 deposed that  Ujagar Singh  stated that  Ram Singh was  taking   his  bath  at  night  in  the  Canal Distributory and  had said  that he had come after committing the  murder of  Sheo Sahai and that the appellant had  then proceeded  towards the  police

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

station.      We  are  therefore  of  opinion  that  Ujagar Singh’s statement about the appellant’s confessing to him  that he  had murdered  Sheo Sahai has been erroneously rejected by the High Court. The extra- judicial confession  of the  appellant  to  Ujagar Singh finds  ample support from the facts that the appellant did  purchase a sword a day before, that very sword  was found  to be  stained  with  human blood shortly  after the murder and that sword was handed over by the appellant himself to the Police Officer at the Police Station.      The evidence of the appellant’s having enmity with  Sheo   Sahai,  the  appellant’s  conduct  in purchasing a  sword and delivering it stained with human blood  to the  Police  and  the  appellant’s confession to  Ujagar Singh,  fully establish that the appellant did commit 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 dismiss the appeal.                                  Appeal dismissed. 211