HENRY WESTMULLER ROBERTS, ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF ASSAM & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1985] 3 S.C.R. 533 · Decided: 27-03-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

533 
HENRY WESTMULLER ROBERTS, ETC. ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF ASSAM & ORS. ETC. 
March 27, 1985 
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, A. VARADARAJAN AND SABYASACH! 
MUKllARJ!, JJ.] 
Code of Criniinal Procedure, 1973, s. J64-C011fessiona/ Statemet1t-Tin1e 
for Reflection to the accused-If ow muc:h sltould be given-Magistrate giving 
only three hours to accus'l!dfor rcf/ectio11-Wluther it is insufficient and 111akcs 
the state11ie11t inad1nissiblc in el'i:lcnce-Held, Confessional State1nent cannot be 
rejected merely bec~use 011/y 3 hours', time is given for reflection if it is otherwise 
acceptable. 
The 
deceased-a boy of 9 was playing with the children in the 
Pandal near a Shiva Temple on 26th March 1975 which was a day of 'Holi' 
festival. The prosecution's case is thJt accused Nos. l and 2 kidnapped and 
murdered the dece.ased with a view to c:-<tract ransom from his father. 
Accused 
No.1 was 
arrest~d on 10th April 1975 and on 11.4.75 he showed the place 
where the dead body of the deceased had been buried. His interrogation also 
led to the arrest of other three accused Nos. 2, 3, and 4. AU the accused made 
their confessional st<itements on different dates before a Judicial Magistrate. 
The four accused were subjected to test identification in the parade held by the 
Second Class Magistrate, P.W. 2 on 30.4.1975 and 4.9.1975. Accused No. I 
was identified by 12 witnesses without any mistake while accused No. 2 was 
identified by six witnesse') without any mistake and accused No. 3 was identi· 
fied by two witnesses without any mistake. In tlleir statements recorded under 
s. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure all the accused retracted their con· 
fessional statements and denied all the circumstances appearing against them 
in the evidence. The learned Sessions Judge, on a consideration of tho evidence 
convicted all the four accused and sentenced accused No. 1 and accused No. 2 to 
death under s. 302 read with section 341.P.C. for the murder of the deceased 
and to imprisonment for life under s. 364 read withs. 341.P.C. and rigorous 
imprisonment for seven years under s. 201 read Withs. 34 l.P.C. and those two 
accused Nos. 3 and 4 to rigorous imprisoninent for five years ea:ch separately 
under s. 1208 ands. 387 read withs. 341.P.C. The sentences awarded to all 
the four accused were directed to run concurrently. On appeals by the 
four accused, the High Court 
rejected the confessional statements of 
the four accused as not being voluntary or acceptable and held that the circum· 
stantial evidence against accused No. 1 taken cumulatively forms a chain so 
cou:iptete that there is no escape .from the conclusion that the crime was commit-
fl 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
534 
SUPREME COuRT REPORTS 
[L9S5] 3 s.c.R. 
ted by him and none else and that each of th~ circumstances established against 
him is incriminating and they cumulatively prove the complicity of accused No.1 
in the kidnapping and murder of the deceased. The High Court found that the 
evidence is not satisfactory to prove the offence of conspiracy under s.120 
I.P.C. against accused No-1 and acquitted him of that charge. but agreed with 
the trial court in regard to the finding on the other charges and held him guilty 
under ss.364, 387, 302 and 201 IP.C. The High Court thu' allowed the appeal 
of accused No. 1 in part only las regard$ hi-s conviction under s. 120B I.P.C. 
and dismissed it in other respects and accepted the death sentence confirmation 
case against him and confirmed the sentenc~ of death as well as the other sen~ 
tcnces awarded to him by the trial court except under 
~· 1208 1.P.C. As 
regards accused No. 2, apart from the confession, which was rejected by the 
High Court, it found that there was no other evidence except the evidence Jet 
in to prove his pr.!sence with accused No. 1 in the ten1ple and the pandal in the 
morning and evening of 26.3.1975 and it held that it is not sufficient to sustian 
hi5 conviction and that as r~garJ5 the other two accuscJ No. 3 and 4 there is 
no evidence except their retracted confessions which were rejected by it ln that 
view, the High Court acquitt..:d accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 of all the charges 
framed against thcrn and rejected the death sentence confinnation ca5c against 
accused No. 2. 
In appeals to this Court by accused No. 1 and the State and the father of 
the deceased, the Court. 
HELD : l. It ha5 to be noted that accu'i..:d No. 1 h1d not told the 
Judicial Magistrate, P.W. 3 that he was 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.