BHAIRON LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by Bhairon Lal against his conviction under Section 302, I. P. C., by the Sessions Judge of Jhalawar.

(2.) The prosecution story was briefly this. The deceased Panna was the husband of Mst. Bhonri, P. W. 9. It appears that for some time past illicit intimacy had sprung up between the accused and Mst. Bhonri. We find that Mst. Bhonri was at her father's house in April 1949. Panna went to fetch her on Sunday, 3rd April, 1949. On Monday 4th April 1949, they were both returning from Mst. Bhonri's father's house. It further appears that Bhairon appellant was also at Mst. Bhonri's father's house on that day, though he left the place a few hours before Parma deceased and Mst. Bhonri. It may be mentioned that the mother of Bhairon accused is now the wife of Mst. Bhonri's father, and that is how the accused used to go there. The evidence of Mst. Bhonri is that she and her husband reached a place called Richwa-ka-Barda on 4th April after sunset. The appellant was seen coming from the other side, and he immediately asked Panna why Panna had abused him. Thereafter, he started pelting Panna with stones & also hit him with a lathi which he had with him, Panna started running away, and was chased by the appellant, who continued to hit him with stones. Panna raised an alarm, but no one came to his help, and eventually he was killed by the accused and his body was dragged and thrown into a pit, which is situated somewhere there. Thereafter, the accused and Mst. Bhonri went away together. Her statement in this connection was that she was threatened by the accused, and therefore, she submitted to whatever he ordered. The same night the accused and Mst. Bhonri were seen at the shop of Bhairon Lal Mahajan of Richwa. The appellant is said to have sold certain things there, which Mst. Bhonri had brought from her father's house. Thereafter, the two of them went to Jhalawar and from there to Durgapura. The two stayed together in Durgapura for a number of days, and Mst. Bhonri's statement is that the accused had sexual intercourse with her by force there. Then the police arrived, and both of them were arrested. After the arrest, the appellant was put up before a Magistrate, where he made a confession. This confession was retracted by him in the Court of the Committing Magistrate. The main evidence for the prosecution in this case is the statement of Mst. Bhonri. We have been taken through that evidence, and have no hesitation in believing it to be true, except for the part where she tries to make out that she went unwillingly with the accused from Richwa-ka-Barda, where her husband had been murdered. We have the evidence of Kanwar-lal, own brother of Mst. Bhonri, to the effect that there was illicit intimacy between the accused and Mst. Bhonri, and that Kanwarlal was told this by no less a person than Panna deceased. It seems, therefore, that Mst. Bhonri went away with the accused after he had murdered her husband because of the previous connection between the two. The accused, in his statement in the Court of Session, has completely denied having any connection whatsoever with Mst. Bhonri; but there are certain circumstances which go to show that Mst. Bhonri's evidence as to what happened must be true. It is admitted by the accused even in the Sessions Court that he was in village Kalyanpura at the house of Mst. Bhonri's father (who was his step-father) on 4th April, and that he had left that village before the deceased and Mst. Bhonri left it. There is evidence that the accused was seen in village Akoria that day, and he has admitted that also in his statement. But he says that from Akoria he went to river Tindhar, which he reached at 2 p.m. and thereafter he went to sleep till he woke up at 8 p.m. Then he suddenly found that Mst. Bhonri was standing nearby, and she told him that she had run away from her husband. He, therefore, took her with him and kept her at Durgapura. He, of course, denies that he had any sexual intercourse with her. These facts, which have been admitted -by the appellant, clearly corroborate-the statement of Mst. Bhonri as to what happened up to the time they left Kalyanpura, and also as to what happened after Panna had been murdered. It is only for the crucial period of 5 or 6 hours, in the afternoon when Panna was murdered that the appellant pretends that he was sleeping at the banks of the river Thindhar. In his confession, however, he had clearly admitted that he met Panna and Mst. Bhonri near Richwa-ka-Barda, and struck Panna first with a stone, as Panna abused him and later with, lathi, and when Panna started running from the place, he followed him and gave him more blows with lathi and stones, with the result that Panna died.

(3.) It is true that this confession was retracted by the accused when he came to make a statement in Court; but we see no reason why we should not believe this confession, be-cause it appears to be both voluntary and true. The Magistrate, who took down the confession, asked the accused whether he had been induced by the Police after his arrest to make the confession, and he said that that was not so. The Magistrate also explained to the accused that he was not bound to make a confession, and that if he did so, it would be used in evidence against him. It has been urged that the evidence of the Magistrate discloses that the accused was handed back to the police after the confession had been recorded, and he might have, therefore, made this confession out of fear of the police. It would have been better if the Magistrate had taken care to send the accused to judicial custody after his confession had been recorded; but in the peculiar circumstances of this case, we are not prepared to hold that this confession was not voluntary, simply because the accused was given back to the custody of the police. We may point out that there is corroboration available of various parts of the confession which goes to establish its truth. (His Lordship then examined the evidence corroborating the confession and held that the confession was true).