Patna High Court
Sheo Prasad Koeri vs Emperor on 9 July, 1919
Equivalent citations: 52IND. CAS.50, AIR 1919 PATNA 322
JUDGMENT Mullick, J.
1. The appellant Sheo Prasad Koeri has been sentenced under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to transportation for life for having committed murder by causing the death of Ram Sarup Koeri on the night of the 3rd April last.
2. The motive for the crime is alleged to have been that the deceased was suspected of carrying on an intrigue with the wife of the accused, and also with a girl named Asturni who was married to the grandson of Pran Koeri, who was the master and benefactor of Ram Sarup and brother of the accused's grandfather.
3. The body of the deceased was discovered in the sugarcane field of one Rigan Koeri on the 8th April.
4. The post mortem examination shows that death was due to strangulation probably caused by pressure of two sticks to the throat.
5. On the 10th April the accused met one Ram Autar in a neighbouring village, and on being informed by Ram Autar that the Police were searching for him, the appellant agreed to make a full confession on condition that Ram Autar would take steps to save him from punishment. Ram Autar thereupon took the appellant to Pararia, the place where the body was found and where the Sub Inspector was conducting an investigation.
6. To the Sub-Inspector the appellant is alleged to have made a full confession at about 7 p. m. In consequence of that confession various persons were arrested on the 11th April, and in the house of one Jagannath the appellant is said to have pointed out a lathi as one of the lathis with which the murder was committed; and also a kudali as being the instrument with which the grave, in which the deceased was buried, was dug. The appellant was detained in Police custody till 5 P. M. on the 12th, when it appears he was produced before the Deputy Magistrate of Sasaram for the purpose of having his confession recorded.
7. The Deputy Magistrate states that being apprehensive that the accused might still be under Police influence and thereby coerced into making a confession, he remanded the accused to jail for that night. On the following day after repeated warnings he recorded the statement of the accused, from which it appeared that the accused together with five others had caused the deceased to come to the house of Jagannath and had there murdered him.
8. Both the assessors believe that story. They have accepted the confession as voluntary and have found the accused guilty.
9. On his behalf it is urged by Mr. Sinha that the confession having been retracted before the Committing Magistrate, it would be extremely unsafe to convict the accused without material corroboration. He contends: that there is no material corroboration on the record.
10. Now the wife of the deceased deposes that the deceased and Jagannath came to the house of the deceased from Paran Koeri's house where they had been attending a feast, and that after a short stay Jagannath took the deceased away to his own house, saying that they were going to listen to some singing. This is some corroboration of that part of the accused's confession which states that Ram Sarup came to the house of Jagannath on the night of the alleged offence.
11. Next, if the evidence as to the finding of the lathi is believed, that also supplies some corroboration of the accused's story.
12. There is also the circumstance that when the wife of the deceased first went to the sugarcane field where the body was eventually found there was only a hand protruding out of the ground, and that as soon as the accused who was with the wife of the deceased saw it, he cried out that she had better not, accuse any one and that the deceased would never return.
13. It may be contended that all these pieces of corroborating evidence are weak and would not justify a conviction, if we were not satisfied that the confession made by the accused was a substantially true account of what actually took place. Bat having considered the circumstances leading to the arrest of the appellant, the period of detention in Police custody, the proceedings of the Deputy Magistrate and the precautions taken by him with regard to the confession, it is impossible to believe that the confession was not voluntary, and that it was not prompted by panic or a hope of mercy.
14. There is no evidence whatsoever of any coercion either by the Police or any other person, and although a suggestion was. made during the commitment enquiry and. in the Sessions Court that the accused had been subjected to violence by the Police, there was no evidence whatever brought in support of that suggestion.
15. It seems that on the morning of the 13th April, after putting the three preliminary questions to the accused, the Deputy Magistrate gave the accused twenty minutes time to think over what he was about to say; and that thereupon the accused proceeded to relate the part which he had taken in the murder. In these circumstances we are satisfied that the confession, though uncorroborated, was sufficient to justify a conviction.
16. Mr. Sinha has finally contended that the facts do not establish the offence of murder, and that having regard to the dissolute character of the deceased and, the provocation given by him, there cannot be a conviction for any offence graver than culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The provocation was certainly grave but it was not sudden, and there are no circumstances which would justify us in holding that death was not caused after full preparation and with a full knowledge that the injuries inflicted would be likely to cause death.
17. The appellant himself according to his. confession only held the lees of the. deceased, while the others strangled him to death; but a conspiracy is clearly established, and, therefore, the appellant must be held guilty of the act which caused death.
Atkinson, J.
18. I concur.