DURGA DUTT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN order to make a confession admissible in evidence, it is necessary that the court should be satisfied that it is voluntary. This is specially, so when the confession is retracted afterwards. After the court has come to the conclusion that the confession is voluntary, and has held it to be admissible, then the next thing to see is whether it is true. IN some special cases it may be that the conviction of the maker can be founded on his confession alone; but as a rule of prudence, ordinarily corroboration in material particulars of the confession should be sought. All these things are necessary because it is very unnatural why a man, who has committed an offence, after precautions to keep it concealed, should, out of his own free will, be coming forward afterwards to expose his guilt. (Para 7) Sec. 24 does not require that the accused should be able to prove that he made the confession under any inducement, threat or promise, as mentioned in the section, but the words used are "appears to the Court to have been caused by any inducement etc. " If, therefore, there are circumstances, from which it appears that the confession was not made voluntarily, the Court would be justified in rejecting that confession even though there is such material on the record which might amount to the proof of its being involuntary. (Para 8) The fact, that there was no evidence amounting to proof, of the fact that any inducement, thereat or promise was given to the accused, would not compel this Court to reject off-hand the statement of the accused in the Committing Magistrate's Court as well as in the Sessions Court that the confession was obtained from him by improper means it is necessary to examine the circumstances under which the confession was made, so that the Court might be able to hold whether it appeared to it or not that the confession was obtained by any inducement, thereat or promise. (Para 8) It is true that the accused may not be able to substantiate his allegations about beating by any evidence, but the circumstances in the case may suggest that some force might have been used with him. Even though there may not have been any beating, the circumstances may be created so that fear may be engendered in the mind of the accused that it would serve no useful purpose, if he did not get his confession recorded. (Para 9) Per Wanchoo C. J. (in agreement with Sharma J.) It is hardly possible that an accused person would interrupt the proceedings and ask the Magistrate to take down his retraction of the confession before taking the prosecution evidence. IN the normal course the earliest time is when the accused is being examined by the committing magistrate, and if be retracts the confession then, then it should not be said that he did not retreat it at the earliest opportunity. It is difficult to expect that, in the normal course, an average villager would make a complaint about a concession before his attention was drawn to it during his statement in court. (Para 20) The facts, whether an accused was in police custody before he was produced before the magistrate for recording confession and for how long, and whether he was given back to police custody, are always relevant in judging the voluntary nature of the confession. It will depend upon the circumstances of each case whether those facts would lead to the inference that the confession was involuntary. (Para 21) Thus where the accused, a village boy of seventeen years, stated to have confessed his guilt to the police on the very day of his arrest was kept in police custody for a period of eight days and the questions put by the magistrate before recording the confession were not searching enough to remove the influence that might have been produced on the accused, a boy of 17 years of age, by the police while he was kept in their custody for an unnecessarily long time, it was held that the confession could not be treated as voluntary. (Para 21) Krishna vs. The State (1952 RLW 103) and Bhainrolal vs. The State (1952 RLW 376) distinguished. C. B. Bhargava, Dy. Govt. Advocate SHARMA, J.- This is an appeal by Durga Datt accused, who has been convicted under sec. 302 of the INdian Penal Code by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, and sentenced to transportation for life.

(2.) THE facts, put briefly, are as follows. On the 19th of May, 1950, one Ganpat, a servant of Shri G. D. Birla, went to a temple on the hillock, which lies to the North of Pilani. He saw blood near the Kund, which aroused his suspicion. When he looked into the Kund, he found a dead body therein. THE matter was reported to the Police Outpost, Pilani, at about 12 or 12-30 noon. Two constables, Beju Ram and Sultana Ram, were deputed, and they found the dead body in the Kund. Beju Ram remained at the Kund, while Sultana Ram returned and reported the matter to Bhawani Shanker, Sub-Inspector, Police Station Narhar. THE dead body was recovered by the police from the Kund on the 20th May, 1950, and investigation started. THE dead body was identified to be that of Durgaprasad, also called Durga Datt, son of Anandilal Brahmin of Pilani. Postmortem examination of the dead body was made by Dr. Girdhari Lal, Medical Officer, Chirawa, on the 20th of May, 1950, and an Irandi and a Payajama as also a Lota and Kulri were recovered by the police during investigation. THE accused was arrested on the 20th of May, 1950, and his statement was recorded by Mr. Suganchand, Extra Magistrate, Jhunjhunu, on the 29th of May, 1950. THE prosecution case is that the accused murdered the deceased. He was challenged under sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code in the court of the City Magistrate, Jhunjhunu, who committed the accused to take his trial before the Court of Session.

(3.) THE prosecution also produced P. W. 7, Sita Ram, whose evidence goes to show that pedas were purchased from him by the accused at about 7-30 or 8 P. M. on the 17th of May, 1950. THE Bahi, in which the entry is made about the purchase of pedas bears no date, and it cannot be said whether this purchase of Pedas relates to 17th of May, 1950, or not. THE accused admits to have purchased pedas from the shop of Sita Ram on the 16th of May, 1950, which was Tuesday, and says that it was for the purpose of offering to Hanumanji. As it is well-known that on Tuesdays Pershad is generally offered to Hanumanji, the statement of the accused appears to be correct in this respect, especially so when we find it admitted by Parmanand, P. W. 5, the brother of the deceased, that Sita Ram had told him that he had sold sweetmeats worth Rs. 4/- to Durga Datt accused on the 16th of May, 1950, in the night time. So the evidence of Sita Ram only shows that Pedas were purchased from his shop by the accused; but it does not prove that it was on the 17th May, 1950, that Pedas were purchased. Rather the inference from the evidence is that he statement of the accused is correct that they were purchased on the 16th of May, 1950. If Pedas were purchased on Tuesday, that is, 16th May, 1950, then the evidence of Kishori Lal well also relate to the 16th of May, 1950, and not 17th of May, 1950, and it being admitted by the prosecution that before night of 17th May, 1950, the deceased had not become untraceable, the evidence of these two witnesses, that is Kishori Lal and Sita Ram, does not help the prosecution.