SANTOSH KUMARI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have read the judgment of my brother and I am in full agreement with him that the prosecution has not succeeded, beyond the realm of a reasonable doubt, to bring home the offence under Section 302, I. P. Code, against the two accused. The sheet-anchor of the prosecution was the statement of Munshi Ram (PW), particularly the extra-judicial confession made by the accused Ram Swarup to him on 3rd February. 1970 at New Delhi. For this there was a clear discrepancy in the dates and in all probability the witness Munshi Ram could not have been present at Delhi on 3rd February. 1970. . according to the statement of the investigating officer Mani Ram. Foil reasons stated by my learned brother. , Munshi Ram (PW) was not even a dependable witness. In the circumstances, the evidence regarding extra-judicial confession before Munshi Ram could not be relied upon.

(2.) AN unambiguous confession, if admissible in evidence and free from suspicion suggesting its falsity, is no doubt a valuable piece of eyidence which possesses a high probative force because it emanates directly from the person committing the offence. But in the process of proof of an alleged confession, the Court has to be satisfied that it is voluntary, it does not appear to be the result of inducement, threat or promise as contemplated by Section 24. Indian Evidence Act and the surrounding circumstances did not indicate that it is inspired by some improper or collateral consideration suggesting that it may not be true. In the case before us, the extra-judicial confession has not withstood this test. It may not be necessary to propound the abstract proposition that invariably extra-judicial confession requires corroboration from an independent source. It suffices to hold that witness before whom the extra-judicial confession was supposed to have been made, could not be stated to be speaking the truth and that is enough to disregard the evidence.

(3.) IT was the bounden duty of the learned Sessions Judge to have clarified the discrepancy as to dates, which he did not do. Sessions Judges while presiding over criminal trials, are expected to be vigilant so that proper evidence is produced, nothing substantial is suppressed and every opportunity is given to the prosecution as well as to the defence, to explain away any discrepancy which prima facie appears to be innocent and which requires explanation. In this case, the learned Sessions Judge did not care to take the elementary precaution of getting explained the discrepancy as to the dates which had a direct bearing upon the extra-judicial confession. He did not even notice such discrepancy as to dates and the learned Advocate-General had to move application under Section 540. Criminal Procedure Code, which for reasons explained by my learned brother we preferred to reject