Ram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh
RAGUHBAR DAYAL, J.- Ram Singh appeals,
by special leave, against the order of the Allahabad
High Court dismissing his appeal and confirming
IYOJ
DtCtmber l!J.
Raghub4r Dayal J,
lftl
Rl/fll SU.,A
v.
Sl•'4 of
UI"" Pnu.h
R.,m.HF D•J"I J.
204 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1962) SUPP.
his conviction and sentence of des.th, under e. 302,
I.P.C., by the SeBBion Judge, Eta.wah.
The prosecution eaEe, in b1ief, is that due to
enmity, the a.ppella.nt caused injuriPe to Sheo Sa.ha.i,
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.
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 205
The learned Sessions Judg~ believed Ujagar
Singh and acted on the extra-judicial confession
made by the appellant to him. The High Court, how
ever, did not relv on this extra-judicial confession. It
relied on certain statements made by the appellant
in his report dictated at the Police Station and consi
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,
19/J I
!lam Sirtgh
v.
State of
Vttar Pr .zdesh
Raghuhar Da_v'll J.
Ram SV.th
v.
Stolt of
Utldr Pracksh
R,.gJulhar Da;1al .1.
Ajit Singh, P.W., 5 deposed about the purchase
of the cycle and about a Jispute taking place bet
ween Sheo Sahai and the appellant on account of
the latter's demanding the return of Rs. IO/- which
had been paid tO\l'ards the sale price as the bale.no'
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.
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 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 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
liam Singh
•• Stat, of
Uttar Pradesh
Raghubar Dayal J
1961
Rom SU.,h
•• Siat.. of
Utlc.r Pr~sh
208 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ l!J62J SUPP.
it, for reasons given, not to justify the rejection of
Ujagar Singh's Rtatement. We agree with thoso rea
sons. There is no enmity between Ujagar Singh and
the appellant and therefore no good reasons exist
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
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 209
the person bathing and naturally asks him what
le<l him to have a. bath at that hour at night.
Take11 by surprise, it is not unlikely that the
appellant should have made a statement that he had
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
1981
Rom Singh
•• Stat~ of
Uttar Prar/e;~
1961
1r.ms;y.
v.
Stall 4/ uu ... P.•i<•h
deposed that l:Tjagar Singh stated that Ram Singh
wa.e taking hie bath at night in the Canal Distri·
butory and had said that he had come after com
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.
- -