Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

On 13 Asuj, which corresponds to September 28, 1968, it is stated, the accused went at evening time to the shop of Parma Nand (PW 14) in village Paliara, at a distance of three or four miles from the house of Dhianu. The accused spent the night with Parma Nand. On the morning of 14 Asuj, corresponding to September 29, 1968, the accused gave Rs. 18 to Parma Nand for purchase of liquor and fish. Fish was thereafter purchased by Parma Nand. The accused and Parma Nand took liquor and fish on the evening of 14 Asuj. The accused then told Parma Nand that he had to meet Dhianu of village Amralu and that Parma Nand should serve the evening meals to him. After taking his meals, the accused left for the house of Dhianu deceased. The way to village Amrahi of Dhianu was shown to the, accused by, Parma Nand. At about mid-night hour on that night the accused shouted to Parma Nand from outside. the shop. Parma Nand asked the accused to come in but the latter replied that he had some work. The accused thereafter went away.

The trial court held that document PD wherein the. accused had made a confession about his having murdered Dhianu and Nanti had been voluntarily got written by the accused. it was further held that the accused had made an oral confession about his guilt to Sahi Ram PW. The prosecution allegation that the ornaments belonging to the deceased persons were found in possession of the accused and had been pawned by, him was also accepted by the trial court. It was also held by the trial court that the accused had stayed at the shop of Parma Nand in village Paliara on the day preceding the occurrence and that he had gone from that shop towards the house of the deceased. The evidence of Parma Nand that the accused had shouted to him from outside the shop at mid-night hour and that he had thereafter gone away was not accepted by the trial court.

On appeal and reference, the High Court upheld the finding of the trial court with regard to the confession of the accused contained in letter PD. The High Court also agreed with the trial court that the accused had made confession to Sahi Ram as contained in Sahi Ram's letter PEEE. The, High Court further upheld the findings of the trial court regarding the stay of the accused with Parma Nand before the occurrence. The High Court agreed with the trial court that the evidence of Parma Nand regarding the shout of the accused at mid-night hour from outside the shop could not be accepted. The High Court, however, disagreed with the trial court regarding its findings of the possession of silver ornaments, belonging to the two deceased persons by the accused after the occurrence. As regards the recovery of dhangra, the High Court held that the same was not shown to have been recovered from the possession of the accused. In appeal before us, Mr. Yogeshwar Prasad has assailed the findings of the High Court on the basis of which the High Court arrived at the conclusion of the, guilt of the accused. It has been urged that the evidence adduced in support of those findings is innately unconvincing and it is not safe to base the conviction of the accused on a capital charge upon such evidence. As against that, Mr. Khanna on behalf of the State has supported the findings of the High Court and has urged that no case has been made for interference with those findings.

(1) The evidence of Parma Nand that the accused had stayed with him on September 29, 1968 and had on the evening of that day proceeded towards the house of Dhianu deceased after he had been shown the way by Parma Nand. (2) The confession of the accused contained in letter PD.

(3) The extra judicial confession made by the accused to Sahi Ram incorported in letter PEEE.

We may first deal with the deposition of Parma Nand (PW 14). The deposition consists of three parts. The first part relates to the stay of the accused with Parma Nand at his shop in village Paliara on September 28 and 29, 1968 when some fish and liquor are stated to have been taken by the accused and Parma Nand. This part of the deposition relates to an innocuous circumstance and hardly connects the accused with the crime. The second part of the deposition is to the effect that the accused on the evening of September 29, 1968 told Parma Nand that he had to go to the house of Dhianu and that Parma Nand showed at the instance of the accused the way which leads to the house of Dhianu at a distance of three or four miles from the shop of Parma Nand. We find it difficult to accept this part of the deposition of Parma Nand. Parma Nand admits that he came to know of the murder of Dhianu and Nanti about four days after those persons were found to have been murdered. It would, therefore, follow that Parma Nand came to know' of the murder of Dhianu and Nanti on or about October 4, 1968. Had the accused left for the house of Dhianu deceased on the evening of September 29, and had Parma Nand PW come to know that Dhianu and Nanti were murdered in their house, this fact must have aroused the suspicion of Parma Nand regarding the complicity of the accused. Parma Nand, however, kept quiet in the matter and did not talk of it. The statement of Parma Nand was recorded by the police on December 11, 1968. If a witness professes to know about a gravely incriminating circumstance against a person accused of the offence of murder and the witness keeps silent for over two months regarding the said incriminating circumstance against the accused, his statement relating to the incriminating circumstance, in the absence of any cogent reason, is bound to lose most of its value. No cogent reason has been shown to us as to why Parma Nand kept quiet for over two months after coming to know of the murder of Dhianu and Nanti about the fact that the accused had left for the, house of the deceased shortly before the murder. We are, therefore, not prepared to place any reliance upon the second part of the deposition of Parma Nand. The third part of the deposition of Parma Nand PW pertains to the shout of the accused from outside the shop of Parma Nand at about mid-night hour on the night of occurrence. This part of the deposition has not been accepted by the trial court and the High Court and we find no valid reason to take a different view. Coming to the confession of the accused, which is alleged to be incorporated in letter PD, we find that the question which arises for consideration is whether the letter sent by the accused to the Deputy Commissioner contained confession about his having murdered Dhianu and Nanti. The fact that a registered letter purporting to be from the accused was received in the office of the Deputy Commissioner cannot be disputed. The controversy before us has, however, ranged on the point whether the letter contained any confession regarding the murder of Dhianu and Nanti by the accused or whether that portion of the letter has been subsequently inserted. In this respect we find that letter PD is on loose leaves. It is only the first leaf of the letter which bears the stamp of the office of the Deputy Commissioner, while the remaining leaves have not been stamped. In the circumstances, it was not difficult to replace or add some other leaves. According to PW Sundar Singh, who was working as postmaster at Kurag during the relevant days, the letter addressed by the accused to the Deputy Commissioner consisted of 18 or 19 pages. Letter PD produced at the trial consists of 22 pages. PW 21 Mehta, Superintendent of Deputy Commissioner's office, has deposed that on receipt of letter PD, he read that letter. An entry was then made in the diary that letter PD related to the subject of jail dispute. Had the letter addressed by the accused to the Deputy Commissioner contained confession about a double murder committed by the accused, it is difficult to believe that the Superintendent of Deputy Commissioner's office would have after reading the letter kept quiet and not brought it to the notice of the authorities concerned. The fact that no action was taken on the letter till it was taken into possession by the police on January 1, 1969 lends support to the contention that letter PD did not contain the confession. The portion of the letter relating to the confession is also somewhat incongruous with the entire tenor and context 'of the letter. The letter appears to have been sent by the accused to the Deputy Commissioner to show that after his release from jail in 1967, the accused had turned a new leaf and he wanted the Deputy Com- missioner to give him help and relief so that the accused might rehabilitate himself and support his family. It is not likely that a person asking for relief would-make a confession that after his release from jail, he has committed two murders.