RAM SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Citation: [1962] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 203; 1961 INSC 351
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: S.K. DAS , K. SUBBA RAO, RAGHUBAR DAYAL
Judgment date:
Case summary
1961 INSC 351. Supreme Court of India judgment dated 1961-12-19. RAM SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
' : 2 S. C. R. SUPREME COURT REPOitTS RAM 8INGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PHAD. b;::iH (S. K. DAs, K. SuBBA RAo, and RAGHUBAR DAYAL JJ). 203 Criminal Trial -Murder-Extra-judicial confession-· Reliability of. The appellant was tried for murder. The facts establi· shed 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 ap- pellant 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 stat~ment of U showed that it was very likely that what he stated may have happened. Held, that the statement of U regarding the extra-judi- cial confession was erroneously rejected by the High Court.
Extra-judicial confessions were not usually considered with favour but such a confession con1ing from a person who ha 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 210 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP. 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. - -
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.