Case Note & Summary
The appeal before the Supreme Court arose from the judgment dated January 16, 1988 rendered by the Designated Court, Rohtak, which had convicted the three appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for the murders of Attar Chand and Jaggar, and additionally convicted Raj Kumar under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 read with Section 6 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985. The prosecution case was that on March 20, 1986 at about 6.30 P.M., the appellants waylaid the two deceased near a field about 3 km from village Nigana. Ballu was armed with a dau, Jagdish with a saria, and Raj Kumar with a pistol. The prosecution alleged that Jagdish and Ballu inflicted fatal injuries on the deceased while Raj Kumar stood ready to shoot. The bodies were discovered later that night by Satram Dass, brother of Attar Chand, who informed former M.L.A. Satram Dass Batra, leading to the registration of a case at Kalanaur Police Station. The prosecution relied on the ocular evidence of Hari Chand (P.W.5) and Prabhati (P.W.7), as well as circumstantial evidence including extra-judicial confessions made by each appellant to different persons on April 7, April 17, and May 5, 1986 respectively, followed by recoveries of a watch, shoe, pistol, cartridge, and dau. The defence abjured guilt and contended false implication due to enmity. Raj Kumar specifically denied making any disclosure to the police. The court first considered the medical evidence which established homicidal death. It then scrutinised the ocular evidence and found that P.W.5's own cross-examination revealed he had left for Delhi in the truck loaded with crops, making his claimed presence at the spot impossible. Consequently, P.W.7's testimony, which depended on P.W.5's alarm, also became doubtful. The court also found it unnatural that the witnesses, who belonged to the same village as the deceased, would not disclose the incident to Satram Dass during his search. It held the direct evidence wholly untrustworthy. Turning to the extra-judicial confessions, the court observed that identical confessions before three different persons in villages far from the appellants' residences at periodical intervals appeared artificial and unnatural. The court remarked that if the appellants were genuinely conscience-stricken, they could have surrendered directly to the police. The available excerpt of the judgment ends at this point, before the court's final evaluation of other circumstantial evidence and the operative order. Therefore, the final outcome of the appeal is not ascertainable from the provided text. The court's analysis, however, clearly indicated serious doubts about the reliability of the prosecution's primary evidence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Evidentiary Standard for Ocular Testimony - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302 and 34 - The testimony of eyewitnesses P.W.5 and P.W.7 was examined for internal consistency and plausibility. P.W.5 stated he left for Delhi in the truck loaded with crops, which contradicted his claim of seeing the incident on the way to Satram Dass's field. Since P.W.7 allegedly reached the spot only after P.W.5 raised an alarm, P.W.7's presence also became doubtful. The court held that the direct evidence relating to the murders was wholly untrustworthy (Paras 5-8). B) Criminal Law - Confessions - Reliability of Extra-Judicial Confessions - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302 and 34 - The prosecution relied on extra-judicial confessions allegedly made by each appellant before different village leaders at periodic intervals of about eight to eighteen days. The court observed that identical confessions before three different persons residing in far-off villages appeared artificial and unnatural. It noted that if the appellants were truly conscience-driven, they could have surrendered directly to the police instead of taking a circuitous route. The court held that such confessions could not be accepted without careful scrutiny and corroboration (Para 9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution conclusively proved that the three appellants were responsible for the homicidal deaths of Attar Chand and Jaggar under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, and whether Raj Kumar was guilty under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 read with Section 6 of TADA, 1985.
Final Decision
Not mentioned in available text
Law Points
- Ocular evidence must be scrutinized for inherent contradictions and improbabilities
- Testimony of witnesses whose presence is doubtful cannot be relied upon
- Extra-judicial confessions made in identical terms before different persons at intervals may be artificial and unnatural
- Conscience-driven confession should ordinarily lead to direct surrender before police
- Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
