Nand Kumar and Others vs State Of Rajasthan

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

Court: Supreme Court of India

Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 181 of 1961

Decision Date: 3 May 1962

Coram: Das Gupta

In the matter titled Nand Kumar and Others versus State of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court of India delivered its judgment on 3 May 1962. The petitioners, identified as Nand Kumar and the other accused, challenged the convictions imposed by the State of Rajasthan. The case concerned a criminal trial in which the principal issues involved retracted confessions and the extent of corroboration required to sustain those confessions. The appellants had been convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for murder, and additionally under sections 377 and 395 of the same code for other offences. Both the trial court and the Rajasthan High Court based the convictions of the first three appellants on their retracted confessions, supporting those confessions with various circumstances and other evidence. In the case of the fourth appellant, the courts relied on circumstantial and other evidence, rather than a confession, to uphold the conviction. By special leave, the petitioners contended that the confessions of the first three appellants were not voluntary, and that even if they were, the confessions lacked sufficient corroboration. They further asserted that the conviction of the fourth appellant rested on insufficient evidence. The Court held that the question of sufficient corroboration must be decided on the facts and circumstances of each case. It explained that, generally, when the prosecution presents reliable evidence independent of the confession—evidence that is not tainted by the testimony of an accomplice or co‑accused—and that evidence establishes the truth of certain parts of the confession which are integrally linked to other parts, a prudent judge may reasonably conclude that the accused’s own participation, as described in the confession, is also true. The Court emphasized that more than this level of corroboration is unnecessary, whereas less than this standard is ordinarily inadequate. Applying this principle, the Court found that the first three appellants benefited from sufficient corroboration, and that the fourth appellant’s conviction was supported by sufficient evidence.

The appeal was filed as Criminal Appeal No. 181 of 1961, seeking special leave from the judgment and order dated 14 October 1961 of the Rajasthan High Court in the referenced criminal appeals and death‑sentence confirmation. Counsel for the appellants, identified as the advocates representing them, appeared on their side, while counsel for the respondent, the State of Rajasthan, represented the government. The judgment was delivered on 3 May 1962 by Justice Das Gupta. In the factual background, the Court recorded that on 4 June 1960, eight boys—Munna, son of Manohar Lal; Ram Prakash, son of Ram Baboo; Laxmi, son of Vidhya Ram; Pooran, son of Gulab Chand; Kedar, son of Ram Kumar; Mohan, son of Banke Lal; Suresh, son of Chandra Shekhar; and Jagdish, son of Mitthan Lal—all residents of Dholpur City—went to the temple of Mangal Bharti for a picnic. The Court’s narrative continued beyond this point in the subsequent portion of the judgment.

In June 1960 the eight boys went on a picnic to the temple of Mangal Bharti. None of them returned home and, on the morning of 6 June, the bodies of all eight were discovered near a well in the Gundarai forest. The post‑mortem examination, conducted by a medical doctor, reported that each corpse exhibited numerous injuries that were the cause of death. Seven of the bodies were found naked, while only the body of Munna was clothed. The hands of every boy had been bound from behind with ribbons taken from their trousers, and their mouths were gagged. Items such as watches, rings, buttons and currency notes that some of the boys possessed were missing. The four appellants—Nand Kumar, Brij Kishore alias Kalua, Lakhan and Murari—together with Jagdish were convicted of murder under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to death. The same court also convicted them under section 377 and section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court of Rajasthan confirmed the conviction of the four appellants under section 302 and upheld the death sentences imposed on Nand Kumar, Kalua and Lakhan, while it reduced Murari’s death sentence to life imprisonment. The High Court likewise affirmed the conviction of all the appellants under section 395 and the sentences prescribed thereunder. The present appeal is being heard after special leave was granted by this Court.

The prosecution case states that on 4 June 1960, while the eight boys were present at the Mangal Bharti temple, the four appellants and Jagdish joined them. In the evening, before the group left the temple, the appellants lured Munna and his seven companions, one by one, into a narrow lane behind the temple and forcibly robbed them of their belongings and valuables. All thirteen persons then departed the temple, not to return to Dholpur City but to proceed to the Gundarai forest. According to the prosecution, the appellants had previously agreed among themselves to murder the boys. They waited near a pillar until about 9.30 p.m.; thereafter Jagdish and Murari remained close to the boys to keep watch, with Jagdish armed with a gun. Jagdish first called Munna away from the others, after which Munna was killed by Nand Kumar, Kalua and Lakhan. The remaining seven boys were then taken away individually and killed by the same three appellants. For these killings they employed a knife that belonged to Murari and that he had brought with him on that day. After all eight boys had been slain, the stolen property was divided among the five perpetrators. Nand Kumar received an Agfa camera taken from Munna together with Munna’s wrist‑watch; Lakhan obtained a wrist‑watch and a ring that had belonged to Ram Prakash; Kalua’s share consisted of a wrist‑watch.

Murari obtained four buttons and a sum of cash, while Jagdish also recovered some buttons and cash. The relatives of the boys became worried when the boys failed to return on the night of 4 June. Information was subsequently received from Puran of Dholpur City, who had visited the Mangal Bharti on that same day and reported that he had seen the eight boys together with Nand Kumar, Kalua, Jagdish and Murari at the Mangal Bharti. Police inquiries at the residences of these five individuals found each of them absent.

On the morning of 5 June 1960, at 6 a.m., Shiv Narain, the brother of Munna, filed a report with the Kotwali police station in Dholpur stating that the boys were missing. He expressed his suspicion that the boys might have been taken by dacoits belonging to the Panna dacoit gang. Later that same day, at about 10 p.m., Bhanwar Singh, the Circle Inspector of Dholpur, succeeded in establishing contact with the appellants. All five appellants subsequently gave recorded statements in which they disclosed that they were in possession of articles taken from some of the boys.

At approximately 4 a.m. on 6 June 1960, the Circle Inspector, accompanied by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, proceeded in a police jeep to the Gundarai forest together with appellant Nand Kumar and several other persons. Nand Kumar guided the police to the summit of a small hill and indicated the location where the five bicycles belonging to Munna and his companions were found together, as well as the places where the bodies of the eight boys were scattered in the surrounding jungle. He also retrieved a knife, identified as Ex‑18, from a bush near one of the dead bodies. After this discovery, Nand Kumar accompanied the police back to his house, where he pointed out a camera and a wrist‑watch that had formed part of his share of the loot, and he produced several pieces of blood‑stained clothing.

Subsequently, the police took appellant Murari to his residence. There, Murari produced a gold ring bearing the name “R.P. Gupta” inscribed in enamel, a wrist‑watch that had belonged to the deceased R.P. Gupta, and additional blood‑stained clothing. He also surrendered a number of gold buttons and a collection of currency notes. Thereafter, Kalua was escorted to his house, where he presented a wrist‑watch, a ring engraved with the name “S.K. Gupta,” and further blood‑stained garments.

The prosecution asserted that three of the appellants—Nand Kumar, Murari and Kalua—made confessions before the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate, which the Magistrate recorded on 14 June, 15 June and 16 June respectively. A statement from Lakhan was also recorded by the Magistrate on 15 June 1960. All the accused pleaded not guilty, denying that they had made any statements before the Magistrate and also denying that any articles had been recovered from their homes.

Each of the accused denied having made any statement before the Magistrate and also denied that any articles were recovered from their houses. The convictions of Nand Kumar, Kalua and Murari for murder were founded, both by the Trial Court and by the High Court, on the alleged confessions, the courts below holding that the surrounding circumstances amounted to sufficient corroboration to establish the truth of the confessions. On behalf of each appellant it was contended that the confessions were not voluntary and therefore inadmissible, and that there was insufficient corroboration to prove their truth. In addition, the appellant Nand Kumar argued that he had not made any confessional statement before the Magistrate and that the document now produced as a record of his confession had been prepared in his absence on papers on which his signature had been affixed. The counsel for the appellant further submitted, as far as could be understood, that the jail register entry showing “1.25” as the time Nand Kumar was returned to jail on 14 June 1960 had originally read “10.25” and had been fraudulently altered by erasing the zero. Relying on the premise that the original entry was “10.25”, the counsel claimed that this demonstrated that Nand Kumar was not before the Magistrate from 10.30 onward, when, according to the confession record Ex‑62, the Magistrate was supposed to be recording his confession. The Court found no reasonable basis to accept the contention that the entry had originally been “10.26”. As the entry stands at “1.25”, there is no circumstantial or other evidence to indicate that it was different at any earlier time. Even assuming that the entry had originally been “10.25” and later altered to “1.25”, the only logical inference, when the Magistrate’s own testimony regarding the accused’s presence is considered, is that a clerical mistake was made and subsequently corrected to “1.25”. Accordingly, the Court agreed with the High Court that there is no reason to doubt the Magistrate’s testimony on this point, and there can be no doubt that Ex‑P‑62 accurately reflects what Nand Kumar stated before the Magistrate on 14 June 1960. Regarding each of the confessions, the counsel argued that they were not voluntary, citing three grounds: (1) a delay of about a week or more before the accused were sent to the Magistrate for recording their confessions; (2) that Circle Inspector Paras Singh visited the judicial lock‑up where the accused were detained on 13 June; and (3) that the confessing accused were kept in solitary cells.

The Court noted that no enquiry was undertaken by the investigating officer to determine why the accused were not sent before the magistrate for recording their confessions at an earlier stage. It observed that, even if, as the counsel suggested, the accused were prepared to give their confessional statements as early as 6 June, the reasons for the police delaying the recording remained unclear to the Court. The Court considered that it would have been natural for the police to expedite the recording of the confessions so that the accused could not later refuse to make the statements on a change of mind. In examining the relevance of Circle Inspector Paras Singh’s visit to the judicial lock‑up on 13 June, the Court recalled that although the prosecution did not call him as a witness, it had offered to examine him when the defence raised a grievance about his non‑examination. The Sessions Judge was ready to summon him as a court witness, but the defence objected to that proposal, thereby precluding any present complaint by the defence counsel that Paras Singh was not examined. The Court affirmed that it was not disputed that Paras Singh did indeed visit the lock‑up on the stated date, and that the order permitting his visit, issued on the basis of a petition, appears to have been directed toward investigative steps in a matter unrelated to the present accused. Consequently, the Court found no basis to link Paras Singh’s visit with any impurity in the voluntary nature of the accused’s confessions. The Court further rejected the proposition that the fact that the accused were kept in solitary cells could give rise to any inference of involuntariness, noting that jail authorities often place confessing prisoners in solitary confinement for their own safety and to keep them away from the possible influence of other under‑trial inmates who might attempt to induce them to retract their statements. The Court held that such protective measures did not, in itself, render a confession involuntary. After considering all the material, the Court was satisfied that the confessions of the three accused were made voluntarily and were therefore properly admitted as evidence. Although each accused subsequently retracted his confession, the Court observed that courts generally deem it unsafe to convict solely on the basis of a withdrawn confession unless the truth of the confession is established by corroboration through independent, material evidence. The Court explained that the adequacy of such corroboration must be determined in each case according to its own facts and circumstances, but it may be generally said that reliable evidence independent of the confession and free from taint, such as that produced by the prosecution, suffices to meet the requirement of corroboration.

The Court explained that when evidence furnished by an accomplice or a co‑accused confirms certain portions of a confession, and those portions are tightly linked to the remaining statements, a prudent fact‑finder may infer that the entire confession is reliable. The Court held that such corroboration is sufficient when the affirmed parts are proved true by independent evidence, and the connection makes it reasonable to believe the accused’s admission of his own involvement. The Court further clarified that a higher level of proof is unnecessary, while a lower level is ordinarily inadequate. Applying this principle to the three withdrawn confessions before it, the Court concurred with the High Court’s finding that each confession had been thoroughly corroborated by independent evidence concerning material details, thereby establishing the truth of the accused’s statements about his participation in the crime.

Turning to the confession of Nand Kumar, the Court noted that the accused described how, together with three other persons, he proceeded to Mangal Bharti armed with a gun belonging to Fakhruddin and joined eight boys, including Munna, for a picnic. He then narrated a plan to rob the boys of their valuables, which was carried out, and a further scheme to lure the boys on a “sight‑seeing walk” (sair ka bahana) to the towns of Gundarai and Barakhambha, where they would be taken to a isolated spot, their belongings seized, and they would be murdered. According to the confession, the boys were taken to Gundarai and, one by one, were killed by Nand Kumar, Kalua and Lakhan using a knife that Murari had supplied. After the murders, the booty was divided, and Nand Kumar claimed he received Munna’s Agfa camera and a wrist‑watch belonging to Munna.

The Court observed that the prosecution had independently proved, through reliable evidence, that Nand Kumar and the other accused had indeed gone to Mangal Bharti, met the eight boys there, and remained with them for a period that included the picnic. Moreover, the prosecution established that Munna’s Agfa camera and his wrist‑watch, which he had taken to Mangal Bharti, were later recovered from Nand Kumar’s residence. The Court recorded that Nand Kumar himself produced these items from behind the floor carpet in the front portion of his house. In addition, he presented clothing concealed in the same location—a white banian, a langot and a white shirt—on which human blood was found, confirming the presence of blood on those garments.

The Court further noted that Nand Kumar possessed knowledge of the location of the dead bodies, a fact that was corroborated by a statement he had made to the police before any investigation, which had been admitted as evidence under section 27 of the Evidence Act. On the morning of 6 June 1960, he guided the police to the site where the bodies were discovered. He also identified the knife (Exhibit 18) that had been lying under a bush near one of the bodies, after having previously told the police that he had left the knife at the scene of the crime. The Court concluded that these facts together provided overwhelming corroboration of Nand Kumar’s confession that he was one of the three persons who inflicted the fatal injuries on the eight boys, thereby justifying his conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Court explained that the prosecution introduced a statement made by Nand Kumar to the police, and that statement was correctly admitted as evidence pursuant to section 27 of the Evidence Act. In that statement, made on the morning of 6 June 1960, Nand Kumar told the police the exact spot where the dead bodies were lying, and he personally led the police party to that location. He also identified the knife exhibited as Exhibit 18, pointing it out from beneath a bush close to one of the bodies after having previously declared that he had left the knife at the scene of the occurrence. These factual circumstances, taken together, provided overwhelming corroboration of Nand Kumar’s own confession that he was one of three persons who inflicted the injuries on the eight boys that resulted in their deaths. Accordingly, the Court held that his conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was properly affirmed. In a similar vein, the Court noted that Kalua, another accused, had also confessed to being one of the three who inflicted knife wounds on some of the boys and to having held other boys while his companions, Nand Kumar and Lakhan, delivered the fatal injuries. Kalua’s confession further described the visit to Mangal Bharti, the meeting with the eight boys, the robbery of their belongings, and the subsequent conspiracy to murder them after transporting them to Gundarai. He recounted the distribution of the stolen items and stated that he received, in his share, a wrist‑watch belonging to Laxmi and a ring bearing the inscription “S.K. Gupta”. Independent evidence established Kalua’s presence at Mangal Bharti and his interaction with the eight boys. Moreover, reliable evidence showed that the wrist‑watch of Laxmi and the ring, originally belonging to his brother Sri Kishan Gupta, were recovered from Kalua’s residence, and that Kalua himself produced these items from inside a box on a “tand” in his house. He also produced a pair of trousers and a shirt from behind another box on the same “tand”, both of which bore bloodstains that were satisfactorily proved to be human blood. The Court held that these facts sufficiently corroborated Kalua’s confession, and consequently his conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was affirmed.

The Court further observed that Murari, the third accused, had also made a confession in which he described how he went to Mangal Bharti and met the eight boys, the conspiratorial plan to rob the boys of their possessions, and the actual execution of that robbery. He further confessed to the conspiracy to take the boys to Gundarai and to murder them there. In his statement, Murari recounted that after the boys were taken to the forest of Gundarai, they were called one by one and killed, while he and his accomplice Jagdish remained on guard over the remaining boys as they awaited their turn. Murari also mentioned that he had taken his own knife with him to the scene. The Court noted that Murari’s confession, taken together with the independent evidence of his presence at Mangal Bharti and his participation in the events described, formed a satisfactory basis for confirming his involvement in the crimes. Accordingly, the Court concluded that Murari’s conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was properly sustained.

In this case, Murari declared that the knife he had taken with him was the instrument used to carry out the murders. He further explained that, after the killings, he received a share of the loot consisting of four buttons, one of which was solid gold while the remaining three were gold‑topped. Independent evidence confirmed Murari’s presence at Mangal Bharti and his encounter with the eight boys, and it also established the recovery of four similar buttons together with rupees forty‑eight in currency notes. The evidence showed that Murari himself produced these buttons and the notes from a box in a room after he had made a statement, which the trial court correctly admitted under section 27 of the Evidence Act because he admitted that the items were kept in his house. The knife identified as Exhibit 18, which was discovered near one of the deceased bodies, was positively identified by witness Ram Singh, identified as PW‑14, as the very knife he had seen Murari carrying before the incident. The knife was not an ordinary cutting instrument; it measured six inches in blade length and seven inches in handle length, and it featured a special button mechanism that allowed the blade to open and close when pressed. These facts, established by independent evidence, corroborated Murari’s own confession that, acting with a common intention alongside his companions, he guarded the boys while his accomplices Nand Kumar, Kalua and Lakhan successively called each boy away and killed them. Consequently, the court held that Murari was rightfully convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

The fourth appellant, Lakhan, did not make any confession acknowledging participation in the offences. To sustain the charge of murder against him, the prosecution relied on several distinct circumstances: first, Lakhan’s presence with Nand Kumar and the others at Mangal Bharti where they met the eight boys; second, the discovery in Lakhan’s room of a portion of the stolen property, namely a gold ring bearing the inscription “R. P. Gupta” and a wrist‑watch; third, the recovery from his room of a blood‑stained banyan shirt and a pair of underwear; and fourth, the fact that Lakhan himself produced these items after he made a statement that he had kept them in his house. In addition, the prosecution urged the court to consider the statements contained in the now‑retracted confessions of Nand Kumar, Kalua and Murari, which alleged that Lakhan had taken an active part in killing the eight boys. The circumstances enumerated above had been established by lawful evidence and, taken together, were virtually sufficient to reach the conclusion that Lakhan participated in the murder of the eight boys in furtherance of the common intention shared with the other accused. Accordingly, it was proper and permissible for the court to take into account the statements from the retracted confessions, as they supplied the additional assurance needed to confirm Lakhan’s involvement in the killings and to uphold his conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Court observed that the statements extracted from the retracted confessions were necessary to persuade the tribunal that Lakhan participated in the killing of the eight boys with a common intention shared with the others, thereby justifying his conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. It noted that an argument concerning motive had been raised, alleging that the confessions indicated Nand Kumar and his co‑accused decided to murder the boys to prevent them from disclosing earlier offences such as dacoity and sedomy, whereas the High Court had interpreted Munna’s death as a retaliatory act for an insult to Nand Kumar’s sister and the subsequent killings as a means to silence witnesses to that murder. The Court found the evidence in the present case to be clear and convincing that the four accused were the perpetrators of the murders, and therefore regarded any speculation about their motive as unnecessary. Whether the motive was sadistic pleasure, fear of the robbery being uncovered, or any other reason, the overwhelming proof established that the accused intentionally caused the deaths of eight innocent children. The Court deemed it unnecessary to elaborate on the conviction under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, stating merely that the evidence supporting the murder charge also sufficed for the conviction under that provision. It held that the death sentences imposed on Nand Kumar, Kalua and Lakhan represented the only appropriate punishment under the law. Although the High Court had shown leniency by sentencing Murari to life imprisonment, the appellate Court declined to alter that sentence, even though it considered the leniency unwarranted. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in its entirety.