Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. In paragraph 24 of the judgment the High Court has summarised the circumstances relied upon by it which in the opinion of the High Court unquestionably point to the guilt of the accused. It is better to reproduce them so that the examination becomes pertinent, pinpointed and confined within narrow limits. Says the High Court:

To summarise, the circumstances which could be said to be proved against the accused No. 1 would be that the deceased and the accused No. 1 left the house together at about 10 p. m. and the deceased carried a spear in his hand. Both of them went to the house of Bhikjya by about midnight and consumed liquor. The accused No. 1 did not return home till next morning and returned alone. When questioned by the widow of the deceased Motibai, he offered a false explanation. Immediately after his arrest, he gave the information leading to the discovery of the spear which was found to be stained with human blood, and that was the spear which the deceased had carried. Similarly, there were human bloodstains on the dhoti of the accused No. 1. Finally he has given a false explanation.
That spear is kept hidden under the heap of grass which is just taken out and near the small plant of Hengal in the crop of the Jawar and towards southern side of my dwelling house. I am willingly ready to produce that spear.

15. The High Court reads the statement as reproduced in its judgment as under:

I give my true statement before the Panchas that (then comes the inadmissible portion which we do not consider proper to reproduce here)...that spear I have hidden in the grass in my field of Jawar to the southern side of my house, That spear I am ready to produce.
The High Court uses the pronoun 'I' at two places. We, with the assistance of both the learned Counsel proficient in Marathi language read the original statement. The reading of the statement by the High Court appears to be far-fetched. Even the High Court is conscious of it when it observes in para 20 of the judgment that the authorship of the act of concealment of the spear would be implied and would be none other than the appellant, and then observes that this circumstance which is one of the strongest links stands duly established. The Marathi word 'Me' is to be found at the commencement of the statement followed by the wholly inadmissible portion and then there is reference to the place where the spear was hidden. The Marathi expression 'Thevalela' would more appropriately be translated has been kept and not 'I have kept' because in the case of 'Have kept it,' the Marathi word would be 'Thevala'. It may be that being not conversant with Marathi language our translation may not be appropriate but if this recovery of bloodstained spear is the only important circumstance of an incriminating character established in this case and if the authorship of concealment is not clearly borne out by cogent and incontrovertible evidence but as the High Court observes left to be inferred by implication, we have considerable hesitation in placing implicit reliance upon it. More so when it is a confessional statement which becomes admissible under Section 27 of Evidence Act though made in the immediate presence of a Police Officer. The recovery of a bloodstained spear becomes incriminating not because of its recovery at the instance of the accused but the element of criminality tending to connect the accused with the crime lies in the authorship of concealment, namely, that the appellant who gave information leading to its discovery was the person who concealed it. And in this case Bhamta was another co-accused. The appellant may have only the knowledge of the place where it was hidden. To make such a circumstance incriminating it must be shown that the appellant himself had concealed the bloodstained spear which was the weapon of offence and on this point the language used in the contemporaneous record Ext. 28 is not free from doubt and when two constructions are possible in a criminal trial, the one beneficial to the accused Will have to be adopted. Therefore, this linchpin of the prosecution case ceases to provide any incriminating evidence against the appellant.

16. It may be recalled that the appellant was in custody of the Police Patil from 2nd Oct. 1970 and it is alleged that he had pointed out the place where the dead body was kept, evidence on which point has not been accepted by both the courts. He was formally arrested on 3rd Oct. 1970 and he is alleged to have made a statement leading to the discovery of the spear on 4th Oct. 1970. He was thus in custody for nearly 48 hours and was unceasingly questioned both by the relatives of Motibai and by the Police Patil Kutrya before the investigating Officer entered the scene. In this background it is difficult to believe that it was for the first time the appellant gave information to the PSI leading to the discovery of the spear. It is more probable to believe that the place where the dead body and the spear were lying were already known and, therefore, it is not possible to accept the suggestion that it was for the first time the appellant gave information on 4th Oct. 1970 leading to the discovery of the spear.