Ram Prakash v. The State of Punjab

Jn1ani bIA:I! ,J.-Thc appellant and one Prem were tried

for the murder of Nirmala Devi, wife of Banwari Lal, a practising lawyer '1t Rupar. The appellant was sentenced to death while Prem was sentenced to impriHonment for life. The 1tppellant and Prem appeal-ed against t.hcir c:onviction and sentence to the High Court of Punjab. Their appe1Lls were dismissed and their con\"iction and sentence were affirmed bv the High Court. Th<! appdlant obtained from this ·court special lea \'C to :i.ppcal and in the present appc:i.l the only que8tion for consideration is w hcther the appe]. !ant was righth; con\"ictcd and sentenced for the murder of :\'"innala Devi. The case of Prem iH 'not· before us.

At Rupar, Banwari J..al practised as a lawyer. His wife, the deceased ;'liil'mala De\·i Jived with him there with t.hei1; child, eight months old. With them also lived Bauwal'i Lal's sister Vina, a girl of about Hi t-0 17 yeiirs of age. Banwari 11\] hacl employed Prem as a servn,nt about four months before the murder of :Nirmala Devi on Fchruarv 12, 1957. This Prem was a youngster of about fo~rtecn years of a,gc at that time. According to the prosecution, he was an associate of the appellant who was posted at, Rnpar in the capacity of a foot-constable in the police force. The appellant and Prem became friendly and it is said that the appellant had an eye on the ornamcntR of the deceased Nirmala Devi, which she was in the habit of wearing when she went out. The dcceascc:I. was a young person in her twent.ies and of good character. She used. t-0 be left alone in the house with her child, V.·hen Banwari Lal went to court n,nd Vina went to school. Prem, however, used t-0 remain at the house. It is the ca.lie of. the prosecution that the appellant in conspiracy with • Prem took advaritage of the deceased being alone in the house, wlltln the appellant went upstairs and killed Nirmala Devi and stole her orna-Ram Prakash v. ments, while Prem remained down-stairs with her T!te State of child. Vina had returned from school round about Punjab 12-30 •in the afternoon as it was the recess time: At that time Nirmala Devi was in the drawing room feed-ing her child. Prem was also at the house at that time. Vina again returned to the house at about 3-45 p.m. She enquired from Prem as to where Nirmala Devi was and was told by him that he did not know as he himself had been absent from the house. Vina, · thereafter, went upstairs to the kitchen to take her food. Banwari Lal had returned from court at about 3-15 p.m., earlier than usual, as he had to attend an election meeting at the Municipal Office. He was accompanied by a pleader Sudarshan Kumar Jain who was going to Chandigarh. He had intended to give him a cup of tea, but finding the door leading through the staircase to the residential portion locked and . t.hinking that his wife was not at home, he and his friend left for the Municipal Hall. Banwari Lal returned to his house at about 4-45 p.m. He enquired from Prem as to where his wife was and was informed by him that she had gone out. He went upstairs and saw his sister Vina eating her food. On O]'ening the drawing room, however, Banwari Lal was stunned to find his wife lying dead on the floor in a pool of blood. He noticed several injuries on her and that some of her jewellery was missing. He proceeded to the police station almost opposite to his house and lodged a First lnformapion Report about the murder at 5 p.m.

. There can be no manner of doubt that an audacious .. , and a brutal murder of a young and a· defenceless' person had taken place with the intention of robbing her of her ornaments. The fact of murder has been amply proved and has not been seriously questioned. The oniy matter for ·consideration is whether the evidence established that the deceased Nirmala Devi was murdered by the appellant with the assratance oj' Prem.

The evidence upon which the prosecution . . relied for

1222 SCPREME COVRT HEPO!{TS • [1959)

t·om·ictic111 is the confcs8ion of Prem, the sl<il€menl of the iippellan\. which led lo the recovery of t.Jie orna-v. ments lwlonging to :Ninn;ila De,·i from the possession he Stair of •>f one Raj Bani <1 mistress of tht• appellant, t hn

l'<'<'O\'cry of a blood-st>Lined Jagger from his lwlongings at th'e police station and his conduct after the niurdcr.

So far as the confcssio11 of Prem was concerned, it \H\s retracted by him in the Court of Session. Prem's siatrment undel· s. 342 to the Comniitting Jlagistrnte, "howc,·er, which had been brought on to the rel'ord

under s. 287 of the Code of Criminal Procc.lurc, t·learlv stated that the confession was a ,·oluntary one. Indeed, his st<itement to the C'ommittivg l\Iagistrate showed that the crime was commit.led by the appellant and t-hat Prem harl assisted him in the co111111ission of that crime. Although i11 the Court of Session Pn•m had rdrnctcd his confession, his memorandum of appeal in t.he High Court. would indirectly suggest th!Ll tlw con-fcssioll made by him was n>lunta.ry and trne. .Before we <:onsidcr whether the confession was a vl>luntary nJHl a t rne one, it is necessary to deal with the su bn1is- · sion 011 behalf of the iippellant th:>L the co11fessio11, ha l'ing been retracted b\' Prem, is irrelevant so far aH the appellant IS • concerned p as the retrnet.ed confoss1011 - of an accused cannot be used against his co-accu•e<I.

Although on behalf of the appellant it had not been argued thllt the retrnct.ed confession of Prem was inadmissible, we regard the submiHSion tliat it was irreleYant and cannot be used against the appe!la.nt ;is tanta.monnt to saying the same thing. t;cction 30 of tho Judian EYidence Act states: '

" "'hen wore persons than one arc hei<1g tried jointly for the same offence, and a eo11fession made by one of such persons affecting himself and some other of such persons is prornd, the Court may take into consideration such co11fcssion its against such .other per8on as well as a.ga.inst the person who ma~cs such confession."

It will be clear from the terms of thi:; section that ,.·here more persons than one are being tried joint!~· for the same offence, a confession made by a.ny one of • them affect~ng qimself and any one of his co-accused can be taken into consideration by the court not only against the maker of the conf@ssion but also against his co-accused. The Evidence Act nowhere provides Ra1n Prakash v. that if the confession is retracted, it cannot be taken The State of into consideration against the co-accused or the c.on-Punjab fessing accused. Accordingly, the provisions o'f the Evidence Act do _not prevent tho Court from taking lmani J. into consideration a retracted confession against the confessing accused and his co-accused. Not a single decision of any of the courts in India was placed, before us to show that a retracted confession was not admissible in evidence or that it was irrelevant as against a co-accused. An examination of the reported decisions of the various High Courts in India indicates that the 12repoudernnce of opinion is in favour of the view that although it may be taken into consideration against a co-accused by virtue of the provisions of s. 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, its value was extremely weak and there could be no conviction with-out the fullest and strongest corroboration 011 material pa'rticulars. The corroboration in the full sense implies corroboration not only as to the factum of the crime but also as to the connection of the co-accused '"ith that crime. In our opin\on, there appears to be considerable justification for this view. The amount of credibility to be attached to a retracted· confession, however, would depend upon the circumstances of each particular case. Although a retracted confession is admissible against a co-accused by virtue of s. 30 of the Indian a Evidence Act, as a matter of prudence and practice· court would not ordinarily act upon it to convict a, <co-accused without corroboration. On t-his basis it isnow to be seen whether the confession was voluntarY,.- and true. It will then be necessary to consider~·hether the confession has received full and strong - corroboration in material particulars both as to . the-crime and the appellant's connection with that cnme.

It was strongly urged that the police had adopted a device to get the accused Prem into their custody again on a charge of theft as he had already been pl!lced in the judicial lock-up qfter. his arrest in• co11110ct.ion with the murder of the d~ceascd ~innaln Devi. He was arrestc(l on June 25, l!l57, in connec-tion with a burglary which had taken place on Decem-v.

The Slale of ber 5, 1956, and he had been since then in police

custody in connection with the in,·cstigation of that case ·until July 10, 1957, the last d1~y of rnmand Imam to police custody. On July 10, l!J57, Prem made a

confession before a :lfagist.rat.e concerning the murder of~ irmala Devi. Prem was discharged in the burglary case on July 20, 1957. Hiwing adopted this device of getting Prem into police custody the police were in a position to exercise great influence upon Prem, a young lad of abont 14 years of age. When he made his confession 011 July 10, 1957, he must have been still labouring under the influence of the police and sufficient time was not given by the Magistrat-0 t-0 remo\'e that influence. The Magistr:i,tc ought. not to have recorded his confession on Julv 10, 1957. He ought to have remanded Prem to jail custody for a few days in oruer that the police influence may be removed from his mind. \V c have examined tiw record and find no justification for the suggestion made that the police adopted a device to get. the accused Prem into their custody ltgain by arresting him in tho burglary case of December 5, lfJi)(i. It is trnc thi>t the accusccl Prom was discharged from the burglary ca'<l on July 20, 19.57, hut there is nothing on the present record to suggest that his arrest in the burglary cas~ of December 5, 1956, was without justification and that, it W<lti done purely for t.he purpose of getting him hack into police custody. It is true that Prem. had been in police custody from June 25, 1957 to ,July IQ, 1957, and the l\fagistmte might as well havp, refrained from recording his confession on .July IO, 1!!57. It is clear, however, from the record of the :lfagistrat-0 that at. 1 p.m. the accuser! Prem was produced before him by the police for the recording of his confession. The :llagistrate told him that he was not a police '!'>fficcr but a Magistmte and that he was at liberty to think O\'er the matte1· .whether he would \·olunte!'r to make a confession and gave him time until 2 p.m. for this "purpose. He further . . explained to Prem that ~ should consider • himself quite free and • not make a statement i.mder the influence or tempttttion of anybody. At 2 p.m. the Magistrate took various precautions. All Rani Prakash v. the doors and the windows of his room were closed. The-State of Everyone, except Prem, was turned out. The police Punjab were !tsked to stand in the verandah from where' they could not see Prem. Prem was again told that he Imam··]. must regard himself as quite free and should not be under the influence of the police or anybody else. The Mag\strate then put a series of questions which have been recorded in the form of questions and answers. By question 7, the Magistrate enquired how long Prem had been in police custody and from where he had been brought that day, to which, the answel' was that some 5 months back he had been arrested. Since then sometimes he had been sent to jail and sometimes had been kept in police custody. By question 8, the Magistrate asked: whether he was kept awake during that period or ha;d been given greased diet (Mnaggan giza, etc.), which we understand to mean whether he hai:l been given greasy food which would induce a sleepy condition in persons eating such food, to which question he replied that he 1!ad enjoyed regular sleep and had been taking common diet. At the beginning, of course, the police had kept him awake. The Magistrate also enquired whether the police or any other person had made any promise or had given any undertaking to help Prem or had given any temptation to him or had influenced or frightened him. If so, he should state this fully from his heart, to which Prem replied that he had not been given any promise, temp-tation or inducement, nor was he subjected to fear or exhortation. He had been merely asked to make a true statement. Prem then said that he would make his statement of his own free will and the Magistrate could believe him or not. The Magistrate also asked Prem .whether any one had beaten him or if there was any mark of injury on his body, to which, the answer was 'no'. The Magistrate then examined the body of Prem and found that there was no mark o'f injury on his person. The Magistrate then asked as to why he was maKing a confession, to whicl), P;em answered'

1226 SUPRE~!E COURT REPORTS [1959]

that he.was doing so of hi8 own free wtn and to Jessen the burden of his heart The ualure of the questions Ra111 l'rukad: put and t.hc manner in which t.he Magistrate examined

v.

Tiu Stalt of Pi·cm clearly showed that the :\fn,gislrnte took every

J>unjab precaution t.o be satisfied whet her l'rnm was going t.o

mak~ a \"olunt.an· stMement. \\"p are salistiet'I that lmani f. during the pcrio;I of police custody bet11·ecn the 25th

of ,June and ,July 10, l!).)i, Prem was not induecd to make a confession. He made the confession volun-tarily. That the confession was \'oluntar\' finds sup1!ort from Prcm's statement to t.he Co1nmitting :\fagistmte under s. 342 of the Code of Criminal Pro-cedure. In that stat.ement Prem told the Magist.mte in answer to Yarious questions the following story : He had been ·employer! a;; a <lomest.ic servant by the lttwyer lhnwari Lal. He had developed during t.his period friendship with the appellant. The appellant had t.old him that he \\"ould commit rape on ::\ irmal•1 De,·i and would rob her of her ornaments 1ind, if slw resisted, he would murder her. }fr informed the appel-lant on February 11, 1957, th•it Nirrnala Devi wo1ild be alone in her house at about mid-dav on Fcbrnarv 12, 1957. He had received on February 11. I 95i, a dagger wrapped in a pajama frrnn th~ appellant and had kL1it it in the store behind the office of Balllrnri Lal. On Fcbrnary -1.2, l95i, he informe<l the appellrrnt that ~innab Devi was alone in the house. He had hand-ed over the dagger and the 1)(lj<11nu to the appellant on February 12, after taking it out of the store room. The 1ippcllant had sought his assistance in t.he eorn-mission of rape, robhm·y and murder of Nirniala Devi and he had been promise<l ;t half share in thi: booty. To the question whether he had kept; wiitch O\'Cl' t.hc house of Banwari Lal when the appPllant enterc<l it for committing rape, robbery and murder of Nirmala Devi, Prem answere<l that he was made to stand near • the stair-case b~· th.e appellant and that he kept \rntch

while the iippcllant committ-ed the crime. He •finally admitted to the Committing 71fagistratt• that the con-fi;ssion which had been recorded on .July IO, 1957, was a voluntary confession. When asked whether he had • to say anythin~ else, Prem told the Committing Magistrate that he had made a true statement before him and also in the Court of the Magistrate who had recorded his confession. Shorn of details the substance Ram Prakash of the story told by Prem to the Committing Magis-v. trate is in keeping with the substance of his confession The State of Punjab recorded on July 10, 1957. It is to be further remem-bered that the statement of Prem to the Committing Imani Magistrate was brought on to the record of the Court of Session under s. 287 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which directs that the statement should be read as evidence. Although Prem retracted the con-fession in the Court of Session, his memorandum of appeal filed in the High Court showed that he had' acted under the influence of the appellant and had been allured by him to achieve his object. He, how-ever, pleaded that he should not have received such severe punishment. On the contrary, he should have been acquitted. These circumstances clearly indicate that the confession recorded on July 10, 1957, was a vo\untary confession. It remains now to be seen whether it was a truthful confession.

Prem asserted in his confession that he had acquain-tapce with the appellant previous to the appellant's posting to Rupar and their association continued at Rupar. There is nothing inherently im:erobable in this story of Prem. It is true that there is not much evidence to corroborate Prem that he and the appel-lant were acquainted and used to associate. Banwari Lal had seen them talking to each other once or twice before th~ murder. The police station at which the appellant was posted was almost opposite to the house of Banwari Lal where Prem was employed as a servant and there was every probability of the a ppel-lant and Prem meeting. It is significant that on the day of murder of Nirmala Devi, in the afternoon, Prem was present in the compound of the police station.with a child in a perambulator. Foot-constable Gurbachan Singh, P.W. 4, enquired from Prem as to why he had gone inside the police station, On this the appellant asked Gurbachan Singh'not to remon-strate wiiJi Prem as he was a mere boy. Gurbachan Singh had staled that previously he had never seen Prem going inside the police station with a perambu-lator. The intervention of the appellant suggests The SliJle of that he knew Prem and was friendly towards him.

PrerrJ's story that he was employed as a sen-.ant by Banw<1ri Lal is corroborated hv the evidence of Banwari Jma,n Lal himself, hiH sister Vina' am) his clerk Naranjan

l >as. In the nature of things there could be no corroboration of Prem's story about the appellant's proposal to rape and roh Nirmala Devi and, if neces-sary, to murder her. According to .Prem's confession n day before the murder he ha<I been givm1 a dagger by the appellant along with a pajama and thA.t Pr<'m took the pajama and the dagger to t.hc upper storey of Hanwari La.l's house lrnving concealer[ it in the koth-ri of fire-wood which was near the office room of Banwari Lal. This part of his stor~· receives corro-boration from the evidence of Banwari Lal that 11,ft.er th•! murder he had found a blood-stained prijama, Exbt. P. 14, hanging on the door of t.he st.ore rqom which is at the back of the residential portion of t.he · house. Banwari Lal is supported by ~and Lal, P. W. 34, )fotor .\Iobwe Pat.rol Sn b-lnspector, w.ho recorded the First Informaticm of Hanwari Lal. According. to him, he found the z1ajama hanging on one of the shutters of an almirah fixed in the wall in the fuel room situate at the hack of the room where Xirmala Devi was found lying dead. lt was blood-stained. Banwari Lal had clearlv stated that this pajama did not belong to him or any one in, his house. The existence of the pajama in Banwari Lal's house londs corroboration to the storv of Prem that he had been given this pajama and that he had concealed it in the kothri of fire-wood near the office of Banwari Lal. The statement of Prem that he had asked Raj sabziwala to bring down the perambulator of the child and th!tt he did RO, finds corroboration from the evidence of Gurbachan Singh that in the afternoon he found Prem accused in the police st!ttion with a c11ild in a pera 0mhulator.

The presence of the accused Prem at Bam\"ari Lal's house nc!tl' .a.bout the . time of the murder appears to be clear. Wh!n Vina had left for her school at 9-45 a.m., Prem was in the house. Vina returned to the house from her school at about 12-30 noon. At Ram Prakash v. that time Prem was present in the verandah in front The State of of the office. When she finally returned from the school Punjab at about 3-45 p.m., apparently Prem was not ih the house but arrived shortly thereafter. The murder was Imam]. committed at any time between 12-30 p.m. and 2-15 p.m. if the appellant was the murderer, because Gurbachan Singh's evidence showed that the appellant was at th_e thana at 2-15 p.m. Apparently, the appellant went out with Gurbachan Singh and returned to the thana with him in time for Gurbachan Singh to be on duty from 3 p.m. If the appellant was the murderer he must have committed the murder before 2-15 p.m. Nirmala Devi was alive at 12-30 p.m. when Vina saw her feeding her child. Assuming that Vina did not stay long, as she had come to· get some money to purchase a copy-book, it would not be unreasonable to assume that Nirmala Devi was alive up to 12-40 or • 12-!l5 p.m. The interval of time between that and

2-15 p.m., when the appellant was seen at the police station, is about It hours. It would be probable that during this time Prem was present in the house and when he says that he was present there there is no inher-ent improbability in his statement. At 3-45-p.m., when Vina arrived, no doubt Prem was not in the house, but he came shortly thereafter and Vina took from him the child of Nirmala Devi. This clearly shows that Prem had gone out of the house with the child of Nirmala 1'evi which one would not normally expect him to ,do at that time of the day, if Nirmala Devi had left the house to do shopping or to visit anyone. If Nirmala Devi was in the house and alive it was most unlikely that Prem accused would have taken her child out of the house. Prem's statement that he was amusing the child while the appellant was doing his neta'.rious work appears to be true, because the child was with him and he had been seen at the police station with a child in a perambulator. · Iftlie circum-stances tend to show that in all probability. Prem was in the hodse from 12-30 p.m. to 2-~5 p,.m. then his 1230 SUPRE::liE COURT REPORTS • [1959] stm·y that he was present at the house when the appel-lant came there appears to be a truthful statement. Rani Prakash It is significant that when Vina arrived 1tt. the house

v. at 3-45 p.m. she found the door of the 8t.air-case locked. 1"/ie State of

When Prem arriYed she sa"· the kt•y in his hand, al-thou[lh Prem had said it was lying 011 the floor. He Jmatll opened the lock of the cloor of the stair-case with that

key awl Vina went upstairn t.o the second floor where she went to the kitchen and took her food. When Bi111wari Lal arrived at his house at about 3-15 p.m. he found his oflice room locked from outside. He \rnnted to go to the residential portion for taking tea, but found the door of the stair-case lock"d from out-side. Finding the door of the stair-case !Pa.ding to the residential portion uf his ho1rne locked, he came down and went away in connection with the election work. On his return he enquired from Prem about the where-abouts of his wife and Prem told him that she had gone unt. He wished to go upstairs to the residential portion uf the house and Prem at his request opened the lock of the stair-case, the key being with llim. According to Bamrnri Lal, the usual prnctice wa8 to lock the door of the oflice which adjoins the stair-case a11cl to bolt the other dcior from i11:;ide, but on the dii.v was of the murder the door adjoini11g t.he stair-CttSe locked while the other door was lying open. Ba11wari La l's derk, ;\ aranjan Das, came to the houHe at 4-1.'i or 4-30 p.m. He went up tu the vera1ulah in front of the office am! found both the doors of the office locked from outside. Ile aRkcd Prem tu ope11 the office, but Prem told him that t.he key of one of the locks which was fixed on the door adjoi.ning the stair-case, had been lost.. He gave t.he key of the other lock and then Prem took out a key from hi• pocket and opened the lock fixed on t.hc other door of the office. There is no reason to distr1rnt all this evidence which would indicate that after V,!na had left. the house un her firRt· visit at about 12-30 p.m. the two doors were locked from outside which mis some- ~hing u111lsual·and that the keys of the locks of these doors were . with Prem. He had given e\'asive ...... an:;wers about the . keys tu \'ina tLn<l !\ar:t11jan Das while the key 1 was in his pocket. These circum · stances also indicate the truthfulness of Prem's state-ment that he was present in the house during the Ram Prakash v. period in which Nirmala Devi was murdered. His The Slate of statement in the confession that the appellant had Punjab lockea the door and had thrown the key in the ·office verandah and that while he sat there, the child, while lman1 playing, picked up the key and that he said to the girl (presumably Vina) there was the key and then he un-locked the door appears to be true. Reference in some detail to the various statements of Prem in the con-fession and the circumstances proved by the evidence of various witnesses became necessary in order to ascertain whether Prem had made a truthful state-ment about his presence at the house during the period in which Nirmala Devi was murdered and also as to the part he had played in assisting the appellant to commit the murder. While it is true that in the confession Prem does not attribute to himself any participation in the murder itself, it is not to be for. gotten that the murder of Nirmala Devi could not have taken place without his aid. Whoever entered the house of Banwari Lal in broad day light could not have gone upstairs without 'the knowledge and co-operation of Prem. According to his statement he knew what was the intention of the app~llant and to assist him in the accomplishment of his purpose he had concealed in his master's house the pajama and the dagger given to him by the appellant. If he did not actually participate in the murder he would be equally guilty of the murder if that murder was committed with his aid and his connivance. The confession, as a whole, concerning the murder of the deceased appears to us to be true and we have no hesitation, after a very careful consideration of all the circumstances appearing in the case, in saying so. In our opinion, Prem's confession was not only voluntary and true but it had been corroborated in material particulars regarding the general story told by him in his confession. The other• questioil whi,ch now remains for consideration is whether the con-fession rtceived material corroboration connecting the• appellant with the murder oi Nirmala Devi.

A;nongRt the appellant's possessions• a dagger was recovered which appeared to be blood-stained but Nam Prakash owing to the long delay in sending it to the Chemical

v.

Tht Statt of Examiner its origin could not be determined. From

Punjab the medical evidence it appearR that the dagger in

ques~ion could have inflicted the kind of irijurics I 1'U1tU J. suffered by )iirma.Ja Devi. The most. important corro-

boration, howc\·er, is the recoven· of the ornamentR of t.hc deceased. These ornamcnt8, ·according to Banwari Lal, she had been wearing on the day of the murder when he left for court. On some statement made bv the appellant his mistress lfaj Rani was visited by t.hc authorities and in the presence of respectable witnes~es some omaments were recovered and thev were identi-fied as the ornn.ments of the deceased. 'I'he 1!\·iclcnce of Rn,j H.ani also showed that t.lwse ornaments were given t-0 her by the appellant. 8he apparently had no reason to depose against the appellant, because Rhe had said in her evidence that she wished to meet, t.he n.ppcllant before giving clue to the or1mme11ts <ind that. she wished to gi\'e the ornaments to the poliee in fiis presence. The defence case was not that. these orna-ments did not belong to the clcecase<l but that, on the contrary, they were hers but had been produced by .Banwari Lal during the police investigation and that it was falsely allcgerl that they h11d been reeo\'crcd from Haj Rani. The evidence of Charan Dass, P.\\'. 2·~. President of the i\Iunicipal Committee of Hupar, how. ever, clearly shows that in his presence the appellant m:ide a statement, w the police t<J the effect th<it one gold fora and sc\·en gold bangles had bee1l gi\'Cll by him to Haj H1111i. This statement was 111,adc on August :~, 1957. His evidence also shows that on August 9, 1957, he accompanied the police party from Hujin,r t.o Jangpnra and t.!1at Raj Itani took t.hem to her sister's house. She brought out a trunk from inside t.he room. She opened the lock of the trunk and pro-duced from it a tin box which contained a gol1l. karn and seven gold bangles. The evidence of Cori Shr1nkcr, n,. Municipal C-01nmissioncr of Rupar is to the same effect and corroborated Charan Dass. The courts •below believed these two witnesses. We have -'xamined their evidence with some care in view of the sub-mission on behalf of the apf>ellant that they should not be relied upon. There is nothing in their evidence Rani Prakash v. to show that they were in any way hostile to the The Stat1 of appellant or had any motive to depose against him. Punjab The courts below having believed these witnesses, we would not ordinarily go behind their · view on a lmani question of fact. Having regard, however, to the con-sequences which arise as a result of the acceptance of their evidence in this particular case, we have examined thefr evidence in the light of the submission made on behalf of the appellant. It was suggested that at the earlier stage the police investigation was not properly conducted and the public were dissatis-fied. A deputation of influential persons met the Chief Minister as a result of which a more active and thorough investigation took place. It may be that influential persons of Hupar interviewed the Chief Minister, being dissatisfied with the manner in which th<; investigation was taking pla.ce. There is, however, nothing to show that Charan Dass or Gori Shanker were amongst those who had interviewed the Chief M.inister or that they had takwi part in any agitation · against the police concerning the manner of the ·investigation. It is difficult to believe that two res-ponsible persons such as the President of the Municipal Committee and one of its members would go out of their way to depose to certain events which would provide very strong evidence against the appellant and lead tp his conviction on a capital charge, unless they had really heard the statement of the appellant and witnessed the recovery as deposed to by them. It was then suggested that, apparently, Charan Dass had no real reason to go to the police station on August 3, 1957, and, therefore, his story that he heai;d the appel-lant make the statement which led to the recovery of the or1i.aments was false. Charan Dass, however, had stated the reason for his visiting the police station.

He went there to complain to the police tJ;tat people parked their push-carts in the bazar and thus obstruct-ed the p;i,ssage. In our opinion, as the President of • the Municipal Committee of Hupar, if a :nuisance was

1234 SUPREME COVRT REPORTS • [1959]

hcing created by people parking their push-cn.rtR in the bazar, it was a natflral thing for him t.o go to the RaH1 Prakash police station in order to get such obstruction removed

v.

Thd Stalt of and for the police to sec that the nuisance did not.

Punjab conti,nnc. We cn.n find nothing strnnge in the conduct

of Charan Dass or Gori Shanker in hn.ving gonc"to the I"""" ] . police station in the circumst.n.nces deposed to by

them. We han~ no hesitation in belieYing the eddence of Charan Dass and Gori Shanker that the appellant nmdc a statement t-0 the effect that lw had gi\'cn one gold kara and seven gold hangles to Haj Rani and tlmt the same were reco'l"ered from Haj Httni in their presence. It would appear, therefore, on the evidence of Haj Hani and these witnesses, tlutt not long after the murder of Nirmala De\•i the appellant was in possession of her ornaments and that he had gi,·en them lo Raj Hani. The ornaments boing in possession of the appellant soon after the murder would show that he either stole the ornament,~ or was in possession of them knowing or having reason to belicYe that t~ey were stolen properties. .Nirmah Devi had been murdered b,- someone who had st-0len her ornaments. According to the confcs!iion of Prem it was the appel-lant who had gone up-Ht.airs where :\irmala Devi w 0as somet.ime aft.er the departme of Vinn.. Ile had giv•m tho appellant the pajama and the clagger. Thereafkr, the appellant left the house leaving the pajama behind. After the departure of the appellant no outsider entered the house. It is clear, therefore, that in order t-0 steal the ornaments the thief killed N irn,pla De,·i. The circumstances clearly indicate that the thief was no other than tho appellant. It seems to us, therefore, that the confession of Prem receirns strong and sub-stantial corroboration connecting the appellant with the crime of the murder of the deceased N irmala • Devi.

The conduct of the appelbntfrom 2-15 p.m. <llnrnrd9 clearly shows that he was in a disturbed state of mind which is .consistent with his ha\'ing committed the ctimc. It is curious that he was utkring the wore! • '.Nirmala '. It had been suggestA'd t-0 Gurhac~an Singh

that the Ass.istaRt Sub-Inspector Rikhi Ram hn.d a daughter with ,~·horn the appellant had illicit connec-tion and that her name was Nilmala, but the witness stated that he had no knowledge about it. The appel-lia1n Prakash v. lant in his statement under s. 342 of the Code of Cri-The State of minal Procedure before the Sessions Judge admitted Punjab that Ire was shouting out the name of Nirmala but he had a love affair with a girl named N irmala, daughter of Rikhi Ram. \Ve are not prepared to accept the explanation of the appellant as to how he was calling out the name of Nirmala so soon after the murder of Nirmala Devi. _This conduct of the appellant may not by itself have been corroboration of sufficient im-portance to enable a court to convict the appellant 011 the retracted confession of Prem. No stronger and no better corroboration, however, of the confession of Prem could be had than the evidence which showed that the appellant had been in possession of Nirmala Devi's ornaments soon after her murder.

There were several comments made on the evidence by the learned Advocate for the appellant, but those comments were with reference to unimportant matters and were not at all relevant. In an appeal by special leave it is not ordinarily permissible to make su1Jmis-sitms on questions of fact. Tlie principal matter with which we have been concerned in this appeal was whether the confession of Prem had been corroborated in m<> terial particulars regarding the general story told by him and in material particulars tending to connect the appellant with the murder of the deceased. vVe have no hesitation_in saying that the confession of Prem hasoeen amply corroborated in both respects. Recovery of the ornaments of the deceased at the instance of the appellant incriminated him to the fullest extent and lent the strongest corroboration to the con-fession of Prem from which it was apparent that no other person than the appellant could have murdered

Appeal. dismissed.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appear No. 77 of 1958.

Appeal by special leave from the judg!J1ent and order dated Febrtmry 26, 1958, of the Punjab High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 860 of 1957, arising out

1220 SUPHE:IIE COURT REPORTS [1959]

I of the judgment and order dated December 23, l!l<i7, of the Additional Sessions .fudge at Arubala in Se:<sions Ram Prakash Case 20 of 1957 and Trial 32 of 1957.

v. ~o. ~o.

1'he Ste1fc of Harnam Singh and Sadhu Singh, for the a ppcllant.

Har Parshad and 'l'. Jr[, Sen, for the respondent. 1958. September 2. The .J11dgmcnt of the Court was delivered by