Puran, S/O Sri Ram vs The State Of Punjab (I)

Rewritten Version Notice: This is a rewritten version of the original judgment.

Court: supreme-court

Case Number: Not extracted

Decision Date: 13 November 1952

Coram: Mahajan

The appellant, identified as Puran, son of Sri Ram, faced trial for the alleged murder of two young boys, Tek Chand and Rup Chand, who were seven and five years of age respectively. According to the prosecution, the fatal act occurred on the eighteenth day of February, 1950, at Ballabgarh, where the appellant supposedly caused the children’s deaths by administering a poisonous preparation known locally as “churan.” The Sessions Judge at Hissar initially acquitted Puran of the charges. The State Government, dissatisfied with that outcome, appealed the acquittal. The High Court of Punjab, upon review, reversed the Sessions Judge’s decision, convicted Puran, and imposed the capital punishment. Consequently, Puran filed an appeal under Article 134(1)(a) of the Constitution, seeking relief from the judgment rendered by the High Court.

On the afternoon of the eighteenth of February, 1952, the two boys attended a performance by a snake-charmer that was being held in front of the residence of a man named Shambu Dayal. It is alleged that during this public spectacle the appellant, Puran, offered the children a portion of the “churan,” which was later claimed to contain a lethal poison. After the performance the boys returned home. The elder child, Tek Chand, began to experience convulsions. His mother, Ram Kali, dispatched her daughter, Bimla, to summon her husband, Mulchand, who worked as a telegraph peon at the local post office. The audible cries of the distressed child attracted the attention of Tribeni Pershad, Mulchand’s brother, who also arrived at the scene. Upon his arrival, Mulchand hurried to obtain medical assistance. The first medical practitioner to reach the house was a homeopath named Dr. Gian Chand, who examined the boy and diagnosed epileptic fits. Dr. Gian Chand left for his shop to retrieve medicines, and on his return he found a traditional healer, Sohanlal Vaid, present at the house; together they administered their respective medicines to the ailing child. Shortly thereafter the younger brother, Rup Chand, also began to display convulsive movements. Dr. Gian Chand instructed Mulchand to summon additional physicians, resulting in the arrival of Dr. Ram Parshad and another traditional healer, Uma Datt. By the time these practitioners attended, Tek Chand had already succumbed to his condition. Dr. Ram Parshad attempted to treat Rup Chand by giving him saline water and performing an enema, but these measures proved ineffective. Suspecting poisoning, the doctor asked a compounder named Chamanlal, who was present, to procure a tube for gastric lavage. Chamanlal departed but did not return promptly. Consequently, Dr. Ram Parshad himself proceeded to the Civil Hospital to obtain the required tube. While at the hospital, he prepared a written report for the police and returned with the equipment, but by that time Rup Chand had also died.

The doctor’s written report was received by the head constable, Rameshwar Das, who promptly logged a case at 5:45 p.m. He then proceeded to the location of the incident and completed an inquest report by 9:30 p.m. That same night, at approximately ten o’clock, the police arrested Puran. Following further investigation, the authorities charged him with the murder of the two boys. During the trial, two witnesses—Rameshwar, identified as a priest of Ballabgarh (designated as plaintiff-wise 7), and Kishan Chand, a boy of ten or eleven years of age (designated as plaintiff-wise 8)—testified that they had observed the appellant handing the “churan” to the two children in their presence. The Sessions Judge, however, found this testimony unconvincing and chose not to rely upon it in reaching his judgment.

The High Court accepted the evidence and observed that the Sessions Judge had unnecessarily viewed it with suspicion because the inquest report showed a later addition of Puran’s name. The Court noted that the Sessions Judge appeared unduly impressed by the fact that the name of Puran had been inserted after the report was prepared. Having reviewed the testimony of the two eyewitnesses, the Court expressed no hesitation in supporting the trial judge’s view that they were not trustworthy witnesses. The first eyewitness, identified as Rameshwar, gave a detailed narrative describing what he observed on the afternoon about five months earlier. He recounted that at approximately three p.m. he was walking from the bazar toward his home when he saw a snake-charmer performing in front of Shambu Dayal’s house. While he was there, he heard a loud voice shouting ‘Abe-khale churan’ and then turned to see the accused, Puran, handing ‘churan’ to Tek Chand and Rup Chand, the sons of Mulchand. He added that two or three other small boys were present and that Puran placed the powder on their palms, after which they lifted their hands toward their mouths. Rameshwar said he continued on his way after witnessing the incident and did not remain at the scene. During cross-examination, he admitted that a dispute existed between him and the accused’s father concerning a wall that he had built on land claimed by the father. Because of this dispute, the Court held that he could not be regarded as a completely disinterested observer. He testified that he voluntarily approached the police and gave his statement at roughly six fifteen or six thirty p.m. However, his name was absent from the inquest report that had been completed by nine thirty p.m. The lower courts observed that even the accused’s name was missing from that report and had been inserted later as an interpolation. Given these facts, the Court concluded that the Sessions Judge was justified in rejecting Rameshwar’s testimony and characterising him as a chance witness. The Court explained that chance witnesses often appear abruptly when an event occurs and disappear before they can be fully examined. Because Rameshwar did not actually see the boys ingest the ‘churan’, he only acknowledged the presence of several women and children at the time of the alleged administration.

The second eyewitness, identified as Kishan Chand, was described as a boy of immature years who gave his testimony regarding the same incident. He recounted that approximately six months earlier, in the afternoon, a snake-charmer was performing his tricks in front of Shambu Dayal’s house. When the performance concluded and the entertainer left, he said that the accused, Puran, offered some ‘churan’ to Tek Chand, who accepted and ate it. He further stated that Puran then presented ‘churan’ to Rup Chand, who also consumed the powder. After receiving the ‘churan’, Kishan reported that he returned home and that Tek and Rup also went to their respective houses. He mentioned that Rameshwar, who was also listed as a witness, had observed the same act of the ‘churan’ being taken. During cross-examination, Kishan Chand gave a version of events that differed from Rameshwar’s account concerning the manner in which the ‘churan’ was administered. He asserted that Rup Chand spat out part of the powder while Tek Chand did not, and that only half of the ‘churan’ was taken by Rup. Kishan also claimed that no women were present at the “tamasha”, contrary to Rameshwar’s statement that several women and children had been there. He identified the location of the incident as the Chabutra of Shambu Dayal, from where he said Puran was watching the performance. Rameshwar’s earlier narrative placed the event at a different spot, highlighting the inconsistency between the two eyewitnesses. When confronted with his prior statement made to the police, Kishan Chand was shown that he had previously said that after the “tamasha” he had seen Puran urging Tek and Rup to eat the ‘churan’ because it was good for digestion. In that earlier declaration, he said the boys initially refused, that Puran threatened them, and that they were forced to consume the powder in the presence of Rameshwar and several children. The Court noted these contradictions and treated Kishan Chand’s testimony as unreliable, following the same approach applied to the earlier witness.

The Court observed that the testimony of the boy Kishan Chand differed from the earlier statement given by Rameshwar regarding how Puran administered the “churan” to the two boys. Kishan Chand asserted that Rupi spat out some of the “churan” while Teka did not spit any, that Rupi took only half of the dose, and that no woman was present at the “tamasha”. He placed the incident at the Chabutra of Shambu Dayal, stating that Puran was watching the “tamasha” from that spot. In contrast, Rameshwar had described a different location for the same event. When the Court confronted Kishan Chand with his prior statement made to the police, he had said: after the “tamasha” ended he was returning home, he saw Puran Brahman telling Tek Chand and Rup Chand, sons of Mul Chand Brahman, that they should eat the “churan” because it would prevent stomach trouble and aid digestion. He further said that the two boys refused to take it, that Puran threatened them and forced them to eat the “churan”, and that at that time Rameshwar Dutt Brahman and several children were present. The Court noted that no satisfactory explanation was offered for the material discrepancies between these two statements. From the police statement it appeared that the accused had administered the “churan” by force and in the presence of a number of people. The Court found it highly improbable that Puran would have administered poison in a public place while many witnesses were watching, as described by the witness. The inquest report did not mention the name of this witness, and therefore the Court concluded that the Sessions Judge was not in error when he held that the witness’s evidence could not be accepted. Consequently, the direct evidence on record was not sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellant.

The Court then turned to the testimony of the boys’ relatives – their father, mother, uncle, sister and a man identified as Bhoji Ram – who each claimed that the two boys had said Puran had made them eat the “churan”. The Sessions Judge had considered this evidence exaggerated and not credible, whereas the High Court had taken a different view. After reviewing the material, the Court expressed agreement with the Sessions Judge’s assessment that the statements of these family witnesses could not be relied upon. The mother of the boys, Ram Kali, who was the first to notice their illness, gave a detailed account. She said that when she asked her elder son Tek Chand what had happened, he reported that Puran had given “churan” to both boys. She further recounted that Rup Chand corroborated this version and added that Tek Chand had taken the entire quantity, while he had taken only part of it, spat out the remainder, and that Puran had forced him to swallow more after threatening him. Both boys also told her that the incident occurred in front of Shambu’s house when Puran gave them the “churan”.

In the cross-examination, the mother, Ram Kali, could not explain the inconsistency between her testimony given in court and the statement she had made to the police, nor could she account for her failure to convey the alleged information to Dr Ram Parkash. She asserted that the two boys had identified the presence of Rameshwar and Krishna, but she gave no satisfactory clarification for this claim. The court noted that, had the boys truly made such statements and had they also identified the two alleged eye-witnesses—an unlikely scenario—their names would almost certainly have been recorded in the inquest report, which they were not. Tribeni Pershad further admitted that he and his brother Mulchand harboured hostility toward the accused’s family because, thirty years earlier, the accused’s father had allegedly poisoned their father. Consequently, the court observed that the accused had no motive to poison the two boys, whereas Tribeni Pershad, Mulchand and their relatives possessed a clear motive to fabricate a false case against Puran in retaliation for the alleged past crime. The testimony of the family witnesses regarding the purported statements of the boys was therefore deemed unreliable in light of the independent medical evidence provided by Dr Ram Parkash. Dr Parkash recounted that, upon arriving at the house, he found one boy already dead and the other, Rup Chand, alive but convulsing. He noted that several other physicians—Dr Gian Chand, Dr Sohanlal, a vaid, and Uma Datta, another vaid—were already present. Dr Parkash stated that Rup Chand was coherent enough to answer questions, and when Dr Gian Chand inquired whether he had consumed any sweets or khowa, Rup Chand denied doing so. The parents subsequently told the doctors that the other boy claimed the two brothers had been given “churan” by Puran. Dr Parkash emphasized that he had not recorded in either his police statement or his statement before the committing magistrate that the parents had made such a claim. He testified that his present evidence was based on a refreshed recollection from his notes (Ex. P.W. 2/1) prepared at Mulchand’s house after Rup Chand’s death, and that those notes contain no reference to any parental statement about “churan.” Dr Parkash further explained that, upon his initial arrival, he had queried all present about the boys’ history but received varied and indefinite accounts, and that Rup Chand himself never mentioned having taken any “churan.”

From the earlier statement it was evident that neither Rup Chand nor his parents told Dr. Ram Parkash, when he reached the scene, that the boys had been administered any churan by Punan. The Court found no reason to distrust Dr. Ram Parkash’s testimony, and if that testimony is accepted it inevitably shows that the later evidence supplied by members of the family is unreliable. According to this view the allegation that Punan gave the churan appears to be a later invention, fashioned after the suspicion that the accused, being an enemy of the family, must have supplied the substance. The Court also observed that this explanation accounts for the insertion of Punan’s name into the in-quest report after the report had already been completed.

The homeopath, Dr. Gian Chand, testified that he saw Punan at Mulchand’s house at around seven or eight p.m. He further stated that when Dr. Ram Parkash arrived he inquired about the boys’ medical history, and at that time no one informed Dr. Ram Parkash that either Rup Chand or Tek Chand had said Punan had given them churan, nor did any other person raise the matter of churan with the doctor. Dr. Gian Chand also affirmed that he himself did not convey any information regarding the boys’ statements about churan to anyone else. The Court considered it highly improbable that, if churan had indeed been given by Punan and the boys had disclosed this to the people present, the physician who had been specifically called to treat them would not have been told either by Rup Chand or by any of the other attenders. Moreover, the two traditional practitioners (vaids) who were admittedly present at the scene were not called as witnesses, and no satisfactory reason was offered for their exclusion. Neighbour Bhoji Ram, identified as PW 10, testified that he went to see the ailing boy Rup Chand, sat beside him and asked whether he had taken anything; Rup Chand allegedly replied that Punan had made him eat some “churan.” During cross-examination Bhoji Ram conceded that he had previously given evidence against Punan in a theft case that resulted in Punan’s conviction and a one-year binding over. The Court noted that this background indicated that the witness was not on amicable terms with the accused. In light of the testimonies of Dr. Ram Parkash and Dr. Gian Chand, the Court concluded that Bhoji Ram’s account of Rup Chand’s statement could not be accepted as true. Bhoji Ram claimed that both doctors were present when the boy responded to his query, a claim that was denied by the doctors. Accordingly, the trial judge’s decision to disregard Bhoji Ram’s evidence was affirmed, and the Court held that the dying declarations purportedly made by the two boys could not be taken as reliable. The final piece of evidence in the case was the alleged confession of Punan, which began with the following statement: “On 10-2-1950, I went to Delhi from Ballabgarh. I was to appear in…”

In the confession the accused narrated that he had travelled to Delhi on 10 February 1950 with the intention of appearing in a court on 11 February 1950. He stated that at about three in the afternoon on 10 February he reached Delhi and bought two tablets of strychnine poison, commonly called kuchia, from a Hindu shopkeeper in the mohalla of Phatak Hashab Khan for one rupee at a rate of eight annas per tablet. He further declared that on 11 February he returned to his home from Delhi, powdered the two tablets in a pestle and mortar, and mixed the resulting powder into a medicinal preparation known as churan. According to his statement, on 18 February 1950 he gave the poisoned churan to his two cousin brothers, Tek Chand, who was seven years old, and Rup, who was nine years old. He said he administered the poison in the middle of the day on a street in Ballabgarh where a snake-show was being held. He described that after about two hours the boys’ bodies became stiff and that they were subsequently taken home, where the local residents reported that the children had been given some poison by an unknown person. He added that the remaining portion of the poison he mixed with sand. He alleged that his uncle, Mittar Sain, suspected him and reported his name to the police, noting that he and Mittar Sain were on bad terms. He further claimed that Mittar Sain informed his brother Mulchand, who had two sons, that he had given the poison to them as an experiment to see whether it would cause death, because he had learned from sadhus that a man could die by use of kuchlas. He concluded that both boys died after two and a half hours. The confession was recorded before a magistrate on 24 February 1950, six days after the accused had been taken into police custody, and it was subsequently withdrawn on 7 March 1950, a fortnight after it was made. The law of evidence requires that a retracted confession be supported by independent corroboration of its material particulars before it can form the basis of a conviction. The Court noted that no such corroborating evidence had been identified. The learned Sessions Judge had observed that the material placed on record actually contradicted the confession rather than corroborated it. Although the High Court had expressed the view that the oral evidence discussed earlier sufficiently corroborated the confessional statement, the Court held that this evidence was not reliable and could not be used for that purpose. The prosecution had the opportunity to present evidence to substantiate the confession but failed to do so. The Court further observed that the accused’s claim of travelling to Delhi on 10 February to attend a case on 11 February could have been readily verified by establishing the court in which he was to appear, and that the claim appeared to be false. Efforts were made to locate the shopkeeper in Phatak Hashab Khan who allegedly sold the strychnine tablets, but the shopkeeper was not called as a witness. Consequently, the statements in the confession lacked the necessary corroboration and could not be relied upon to sustain a conviction.

It was observed that, had the confession been truthful in stating that the accused had purchased two tablets of strychnine from a shop located in Phatak Hashab Khan, the purchase could have been readily verified by the testimony of the shop-keeper. The reason was that poison could not be sold without the purchaser signing a register that the shop maintained for that purpose. The accused further alleged that he had crushed the two tablets in a pestle and mortar, blended the powder with a medicinal preparation called churan, and then administered the mixture to his cousin brothers. He also claimed that the remaining portion of the poison had been mixed with sand. Both the pestle and mortar and the sand that allegedly contained the poison were forwarded to a chemical examiner, but the examiner reported that no traces of poison were detected in either item. These findings, instead of corroborating the confession, actually undermined its credibility. Moreover, the confession made no reference to the two eye-witnesses, Rameshwar and Kishen Chand, whose testimony had been recorded elsewhere. Consequently, the High Court’s reliance on the confessional statement as the basis for the conviction was held to be erroneous.

The Court further noted that the High Court had apparently not considered a prior decision of this Court in Surajpal Singh v. State, where it was emphasized that although a High Court possessed full authority to review the evidence underlying an acquittal, the presumption of innocence attached to an accused—strengthened by an acquittal at trial—could be set aside only for reasons that were both very substantial and compelling. In addition, the Court referred to the judgment in Sheo Swarup v. Emperor, wherein the Privy Council had observed that no limitation should be placed on a High Court’s power to re-examine the evidence on which an acquittal was based. However, the Privy Council also directed that, in exercising that power, the High Court must give proper weight to several considerations: first, the trial judge’s assessment of the credibility of witnesses; second, the enduring presumption of innocence in favor of the accused, a presumption not diminished merely because the accused had been acquitted at trial; third, the accused’s right to the benefit of any doubt; and fourth, the general reluctance of an appellate court to disturb a factual finding made by a judge who had the advantage of directly observing the witnesses. Applying these principles, the Court found that none of the compelling or substantial reasons required to overturn the trial court’s acquittal had been identified by the High Court. The High Court’s judgment had failed to discuss the prosecution witnesses’ evidence in any detail and had not satisfactorily explained the material discrepancies that the Sessions Judge had highlighted in the statements of those witnesses.

In this case the Court observed that the trial judge had rendered a careful and detailed judgment. After reviewing that judgment and the material placed before it, the Court was of the view that there was no ground on which to disturb the acquittal that had been granted by the Sessions Judge. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the appeal filed under Section 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code did not disclose any circumstance that would justify interference with the lower court’s order. The Court therefore affirmed its satisfaction that the factual findings and credibility assessments made by the trial judge should remain undisturbed. On the basis of the foregoing considerations, the Court allowed the present appeal, cancelled the direction issued by the High Court, and reinstated the original order of the Sessions Judge which had acquitted the appellant of the charges. The effect of the order was to restore the status quo ante, leaving the appellant free from conviction and confirming that the earlier finding of acquittal continued to stand. Consequently, the appellate jurisdiction exercised in this matter did not override the substantive determination of innocence that had been established at trial. The Court therefore emphasized the principle that appellate courts should be cautious in disturbing findings of fact made by trial courts.