Ram Singh vs State Of Uttar Pradesh

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

Court: Supreme Court of India

Case Number: Criminal Appeal 89 of 1961

Decision Date: 19 December 1961

Coram: Raghubar Dayal, S.K. Das

Ram Singh filed a petition before the Supreme Court of India, seeking special leave to appeal an order dated 8 December 1960 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1782 of 1960. The High Court had dismissed his appeal and affirmed his conviction for murder under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, together with the death sentence imposed by the Session Judge of Etawah. The judgment was delivered on 19 December 1961 by Justice Raghubar Dayal, who was joined by Justices S.K. Das and K. Subbarao. The citation of the case appears as 1967 AIR 152 and 1962 SCR (2) 203. The headnote records that the appellant was tried for murder, with the established facts showing a quarrel between the appellant and the deceased, Sheo Sahai, over the purchase of a cycle and a game of cards. It was further noted that the appellant had bought a sword a day before the incident and later deposited the sword, stained with human blood, at the police station shortly after the murder. Evidence was also presented of an extra‑judicial confession made by the appellant to a person identified as Ujagar Singh while the appellant was taking a bath in a canal. The High Court did not rely on this confession, expressing doubt about its reliability, although it observed that the contents of Ujagar Singh’s statement seemed plausibly consistent with the facts. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in rejecting the statement of Ujagar Singh. While extra‑judicial confessions are generally approached with caution, the Court stated that a confession given by a person who has no motive to lie and made under circumstances that support its truth may be admissible. In the present case, the confession was corroborated by other established facts, and together they fully proved the guilt of the appellant.

The Court reiterated that the prosecution’s case, in brief, alleged that because of enmity the appellant inflicted fatal injuries on Sheo Sahai, who was sleeping in his cattle shed at Bhadurpur Ghar, using a sword on the night of 14‑15 June 1960. After the killing, the appellant went to a canal distributary some distance away, bathed there, and subsequently proceeded to the police station at Ekdil, nine miles from the village, where he lodged a report and surrendered the sword, which was later confirmed by a serologist to be stained with human blood. The appellant was taken into custody, investigated, and eventually sent for trial. He denied causing the death and claimed false accusation. He further alleged that a person named Paley Singh had informed him of the murder and instructed him to report the incident orally to the station officer. According to his version, he was detained at the police station until the following morning, then placed in lock‑up, and that a sub‑inspector forcibly took his thumb impression on three papers without explaining the purpose. The appellant offered no evidence to support his version, and the lower courts correctly rejected his claims. The evidence presented by the prosecution included motive, the extra‑judicial confession to Ujagar Singh made while bathing, the purchase of the sword, and the surrender of the sword at the police station after the report was dictated. Both the trial court and the High Court rightly accepted this evidence, and the Supreme Court affirmed that the confession, together with the surrounding facts, substantiated the appellant’s conviction.

In this case, the appellant denied that he caused the death of Sheo Sahai and asserted that he had been falsely implicated in the offence. He also rejected every other allegation raised by the prosecution. The appellant claimed that a person named Paley Singh had informed him of the murder of Sheo Sahai and had instructed him to go to the Police Station at Ekdil and orally report the murder to the Station Officer. The appellant complied with that instruction. After arriving at the police station, he was detained there until eleven o’clock in the morning on the following day, after which he was placed in the lock‑up. During that detention, the Sub‑Inspector forced the appellant to place his thumb impression on three separate sheets of paper, doing so without explaining the purpose of the impressions. The appellant offered no documentary or other evidence to support his version of events. Accordingly, the lower courts correctly refused to accept his narrative. The prosecution’s case was built on evidence relating to a motive, an extra‑judicial confession made by the appellant to a man named Ujagar Singh while the appellant was taking a bath in the canal, the appellant’s purchase of the sword, and the appellant’s delivery of the sword to the police station after he had dictated a written report. Both the trial court and the appellate court properly gave weight to the evidence concerning motive and the purchase of the sword by the appellant. The Sessions Judge accepted the testimony of Ujagar Singh and relied on the extra‑judicial confession attributed to the appellant. In contrast, the High Court did not rely on that extra‑judicial confession; instead it placed reliance on certain statements contained in the report dictated by the appellant at the police station, and, together with the motive and the evidence of the sword purchase, found those facts sufficient to uphold the conviction and the death sentence. Counsel for the appellant argued that the entire report dictated by the appellant should be excluded as evidence because its contents amounted to a confession made to a police officer, and further contended that the evidence on which the High Court relied was insufficient to prove that the appellant had murdered Sheo Sahai. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that the High Court erred in rejecting the statement of Ujagar Singh concerning the appellant’s extra‑judicial confession, and maintained that the extra‑judicial confession, together with the circumstances considered by the High Court, fully established the prosecution’s case. The respondent also submitted that portions of the dictated report that did not directly admit that the appellant struck Sheo Sahai with a sword causing his death were admissible. The Court does not consider it necessary to adjudicate on the admissibility of any portion of the dictated report, because there exists independent evidence regarding the four matters mentioned in the report and relied upon by the High Court. Those admissions by the appellant are: that he purchased a bicycle from the deceased; that a dispute arose during a game of cards; that he purchased a sword; and

The Court noted that, in addition to the earlier admissions, the appellant had also admitted that he deposited the sword at the Police Station. Ajit Singh, who was identified as the fifth witness, testified that he had seen the appellant purchase a cycle and that a dispute had arisen between Sheo Sahai and the appellant because the appellant demanded the return of ten rupees that had been paid as part of the sale price. The balance of the purchase price had not been paid and, according to the oral agreement, Sheo Sahai had cancelled the transaction. The Court observed that Ajit Singh bore no animosity toward the appellant, and that none of the prosecution witnesses were alleged to be hostile to him. The second and fourth witnesses, Paley Singh and Baij Nath, respectively, gave evidence concerning the quarrel that occurred during a game of cards on 12 June 1960. The third witness, Kehar Singh, testified that a sword had been sold to the appellant on 13 June 1960. A receipt relating to that sale was recovered from the appellant’s person when he was searched after his arrest. The twelfth witness, Madho Ram, and the sixteenth witness, Sri Kishan Singh, the Station Officer at Ekdil, both testified that the appellant had deposited the sword at the Police Station; the latter also confirmed that the appellant had dictated a report in his presence. Consequently, the Court held that it was unnecessary to rely on the appellant’s own statements in the report, because the same facts had been established by the testimony of the various witnesses, which had been correctly accepted by the trial court.

The Court then examined whether the surrounding circumstances—specifically, the appellant’s motive to harm Sheo Sahai, his purchase of a sword a day before the incident, and his subsequent depositing of a sword stained with human blood at the Police Station on the night of the murder—were sufficient to conclude that the appellant was the murderer. The Court expressed the view that the High Court had erred in rejecting the statement of Ujagar Singh, in which the appellant allegedly confessed to the murder. The High Court had said that a review of Ujagar Singh’s statement made the alleged confession appear “very likely” yet nonetheless found it “improbable” that Ujagar Singh would have been sleeping in his field or would have met the appellant in the manner described, because the crop season was not at its peak. The High Court also expressed uncertainty about the extra‑judicial confession and consequently placed no reliance on it. The Court found these observations inconsistent. If the statement of Ujagar Singh made the occurrence “very likely,” then the doubts about Ujagar Singh’s presence in his field and his meeting with the appellant should not have arisen, especially when the trial judge had found evidence supporting Ujagar Singh’s presence.

The record showed that at the material time the fields were planted with chari and sugarcane crops. The learned judges did not set out any additional consideration that might offset the improbability they attached to Ujagar Singh’s presence in his own field on the ground that the crops were not very high. That improbability, in their view, led them to doubt the appellant’s alleged confession to Ujagar Singh. It is relevant to note that, according to his own statement, Ujagar Singh was in the field to protect the crop from the depredations of the neel gais, which are known to damage plant leaves and to show no preference for tall plants; indeed, smaller plants are easier for the animals to graze. The learned Sessions Judge examined the criticisms raised against accepting Ujagar Singh’s statement and, for the reasons he explained, rejected the contention that the statement should be dismissed. The Court concurs with those reasons. No animosity existed between Ujagar Singh and the appellant, and therefore there was no persuasive motive for Ujagar Singh to give a false account. Although extra‑judicial confessions are not ordinarily favored, a confession made by a person who has no reason to lie and which is given under circumstances that support its reliability should not be disbelieved. The murder in question took place in June. Because of the high temperature and the perpetrator’s probable desire to wash away bloodstains, the appellant’s bathing in the canal at that late‑night hour cannot be said to be improbable. The report of Sub‑Inspector Kishan Singh makes no claim, nor is there any allegation, that the appellant was found with bloodstains on his person or clothing when he presented himself at the police station. This absence of contrary evidence lends support to Ujagar Singh’s assertion that the appellant took a bath in the canal at that time. Of course, this line of reasoning is premised on the supposition that the appellant did commit the murder. The fact that the appellant possessed a sword stained with human blood gives rise to that supposition, even though mere possession of a blood‑stained sword shortly after a homicide, especially where the victim and the possessor had a known enmity, does not conclusively prove the possessor’s guilt. The canal runs alongside Ujagar Singh’s field, and he was there to watch for trespassing neel gais. Consequently, it was not surprising that he awoke, proceeded to the spot from which a splashing sound—presumed to be caused by the wading animals—originated, and reached the canal bank. Upon arrival he saw a person bathing and naturally inquired what had prompted such a bath at that hour of the night. Surprised by the appellant’s presence, it was not unlikely that the appellant would have admitted that he had murdered Sheo Sahai.

The record showed that after bathing, the appellant proceeded to the police station where he handed over the sword that was stained with blood. There was no reason to believe that the appellant would refuse to make such a statement when he himself voluntarily delivered the weapon to the authorities. The appellant's counsel argued that it was unusual for a person who killed another over a minor dispute to feel justified enough to openly admit the crime to the first individual he encountered and then report it to the police. Nevertheless, the court recognized that determining a person's motive for particular conduct is often a complex exercise in criminal investigations. It was possible, the judgment observed, that after inadvertently revealing the truth to Ujagar Singh while being surprised, the appellant considered proceeding to the police station to be the most appropriate next step. The evidence also showed that Ujagar Singh did not immediately rush to the village to inform others about the murder of Sheo Sahai. The learned Sessions Judge examined the criticism of this delay and concluded that reasonable justification existed for Ujagar Singh remaining in his field, where he was guarding his crops against the wandering cattle. The present court agreed with that assessment and held that the appellant's presence in the field during the night did not render Ujagar Singh's testimony implausible. Ujagar Singh finally proceeded to the village at approximately five a.m. and thereafter relayed to the villagers the information that he had received from the appellant. This account received indirect corroboration from the testimony of Paley Singh, who stated that the Sub‑Inspector was not present when Ujagar Singh conveyed the nighttime incident, and from Bishram Singh, who testified that Ujagar Singh reported that Ram Singh was bathing at night in the canal distributory, had confessed to having committed the murder of Sheo Sahai, and then proceeded toward the police station. Consequently, the court held that the High Court had erred in rejecting Ujagar Singh's statement concerning the appellant's confession to the murder. The extrajudicial confession to Ujagar Singh was supported by the fact that the appellant had purchased a sword a day before the killing, that the same sword was discovered stained with human blood soon after the homicide, and that the appellant himself handed the weapon to the police officer at the police station. These circumstances, together with the established enmity between the appellant and Sheo Sahai, established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had committed the murder of Sheo Sahai. Accordingly, the court affirmed that the conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was proper and justified.

The Court observed that the punishment imposed on the appellant had been correctly awarded and was proper in view of the seriousness of the offence and the statutory provisions governing such offences. After reviewing the material on record, the Court found that the sentencing judge had applied the relevant provisions of the Penal Code and the established sentencing principles in a manner that was consistent with law. Consequently, the Court held that there was no basis for interfering with the sentence that had already been pronounced. In light of this conclusion, the Court ordered that the appeal be dismissed. The order of dismissal meant that the judgment of the trial court, together with the sentence attached to it, remained fully effective and binding on the parties. Accordingly, the Court recorded that the appeal was dismissed and that the conviction and sentence affirmed by the lower court stood upheld. No additional relief, modification, or remission of the sentence was granted to the appellant. The decision therefore concluded with the formal declaration that the appeal was dismissed and that the original order continued to operate. The dismissal of the appeal therefore affirmed the findings of the lower court and brought the proceedings to an end, leaving no further avenue for review. Consequently, the judgment attained the finality prescribed by the procedural law.