EMPEROR Vs. GOMA RAMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER setting out the facts of the case His Lordship proceeded as follows : The main point urged by Mr. Jahagirdar on behalf of the appellants is that the learned Judge below seriously misdirected the jury in asking them to accept the part of the confessions of the accused consisting of statements about their having committed several acts of sabotage along with other persons who are not accused in this case, and to accept the Police Sub-Inspector's evidence who produced a register of crimes in which some of the acts admitted by the accused in their confessions had been noted. Mr. Jahagirdai has contended that this evidence is inadmissible in law and the misdirection consisted in asking the jury to rely upon this part of the evidence by way of corroboration of the . retracted confession of the particular offence with which they were charged in the present case. To give one instance of what the accused stated in their confessions, accused No. 1 began by saying that he and one Kotwal, who is now alleged to have been shot by the police after this offence was committed, became acquainted with each other, and thereafter they, along with other persons, thought of committing acts of sabotage by stopping railway trains, cutting railway lines, pulling out rails and cutting electric posts. Then he refers to the meetings of different persons from time to time at different places for the purpose of committing those acts. The persons who are alleged to have met together on different occasions are some of the accused in the present case, and several others who have no connection with the present offence. AFTER stating the various acts of sabotage committed by them at different places, accused No. 1 narrated the circumstances in which the present crime was committed by them on December 4, 1942. The confessions of the other accused are also to the same effect. They mention different acts done by different persons from time to time. Thus it appears from the confessions that different persons assembled at different times for the purpose of committing acts of sabotage at different places, and it is not the prosecution case that all these acts and the present offence were parts of a conspiracy to which the accused were parties. It is therefore contended on behalf of the accused that there being no charge of conspiracy with common intention to do the previous acts referred to in the confessions, the alleged admission of those acts in the confessions ought to have been ruled out by the learned Judge, and only that much of the confession ought to have been exhibited as related to the particular offences with which th|e accused were charged. In our opinion, this contention is well founded and the alleged admissions of the accused about the previous acts in their confessions are inadmissible in evidence with the result that the case for, accused Nos. 1 and 8 who have been held: guilty by the jury has been seriously prejudiced by the learned Judge's reference to them in his charge. These statements do not amount to confessions so far as this trial is concerned. The word "confession" has not been defined in the Indian Evidence Act, but in a recent decision of the Privy Council in Narayana Swami v. Emperor (1939) 41 Bom. L. R. 428, P. C. their Lordships have described what a confession really is. They say (head-note) : A confessdon must either admit in terms the offence; or at any rate substantially all the facts which constitute the offence. An admission of a gravely incriminating fact is not of itself a confession, e. g. , an admission that the accused is the owner of and was in recent possession of the knife or revolver which! caused a death with no explanation of any other man's possession. A confession, under the Indian Evidence Act, does not mean a statement by an accused ' suggesting the inference that he committed' the crime.

(2.) IT is clear from this description of what a confession is, that it must relate to the particular crime with which the accused is charged, and that any admission which is not connected with any of the ingredients of the offence charged would not amount to a confession. IT must, therefore, follow that there being no charge of conspiracy in the present case, the alleged admissions of previous acts done by each confessing accused, even assuming that they suggest the inference that he committed the present offence do not amount to confessions.

(3.) AFTER referring to various other decisions it was held that Section 11 rendered inadmissible the evidence of one crime (not reduced to legal certainty by a conviction) to prove the existence of another unconnected crime, even though it be cognate. In our opinion, these observations can be well applied to the facts of the present case, because the alleged acts of sabotage and dacoity committed by some of the present accused along with others at different places are not parts of one transaction according to the charge laid against the accused.