KASHMIRA SINGH versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [1952] 1 S.C.R. 526 · Decided: 04-03-1952 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BIJAN KUMAR MUKHERJEA

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1952 
March-4. 
526 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1952} 
KASHMIRA SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
[SAIYID FAZL Au, 
MuKHERJEA 
and v IVIAN BosE, J.J.] 
Indian Evidence Act 
(1 of 1872), 
ss. 3, 30-Confession of 
co-Occused-Evidentiary 
value-Evidence 
of 
accomplice--Necessity 
of ·corroboration-Confession-Practice of exan1ining magistrate who-
recorded the confessi·on. 
The confession of an accused person against a co-accused is 
not evidence in the 
ordinary sense of 
the term. 
It does not 
come within the meaning of evidence contained in sec. 3 of the 
Indian Evidence Act inasmuch as it is not required to be given 
on oath, nor in the presence of the accused and cannot be tested 
by cross-examination. 
It is a 
much 
weaker type of evidence 
than the evidence of an approver which is not subject to any of 
these infirmities. 
Such a confession can only be used to lend assurance to other 
evidence against a co-accused. The proper way to approach a case 
of this kind is, first!, to marshal the evidence against the accused 
excluding 
the 
confession altogether from 
consideration and see 
whether, if tt is believed, a conviction could safely be based on 
it. If it is capable of belief independently of the confession, then 
it is not necessary to call the confession in aid. But cases may 
arise where the judge is not prepared to act on the other evidence 
as it stands even though, if believed, 
it would be sufficient to 
sustain a conviction. 
In such an event the judge may call in 
ald the confession and use it to lend assurance to the other 
evidence and thus fortify himself in believing what without the 
aid of the confession he would not be prepared to accept. 
Bhuboni Sahu v. The King (76 I.A. 147) reiied upon. Emperor 
v. Lalit Mohan Chukerbutty (38 _CaL 599 at 588) and In re Periya-
swami Moopan (I.L.R. 54 Mad. 75) referred to. 
A conviction 
can be based 
on the 
uncorroborated testimony 
of an accomplice provided the judge has the rule of caution, 
which experience dictates, in mind. 
Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan [1952] S.C.R. 377 referred to, 
The rule of caution is that save in exceptional circumstances 
one accomplice cannot be used to corroborate another, nor can 
he be used to corroborate a persoD. who though not an accom-
plice is no· more 
~liable. than one. · 
. 
~. 
.! .. 
... 
t· 
It is not proper or 
desirable for the prosecution to. examine 
as a witness the magistrate who recorded the confession. 
). 
-
-
-
' • 
' 
.-S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
527 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION: Criminal Ap-
peal No. 53 of 1951. 
Appeal by special leave from the 
Judgment and Order dated the 8th June 
1951 of 
the 
High Court of Judicature at Nagpur (Hemeon and 
Rao JJ.) in Criminal Appeal No. 297 of 1950, arising 
out of the Judgment and Order dated the 11th Sep-
tember 1950 of the 
Court of the Additional Sessions 
Judge of 
Bhandara in Session Trial No. 25 of 195(1. 
Bakshi Tek Chand, (Gopal Singh, with him) for the 
appellant. 
S. K. Kapoor, for the respondent.' 
1952. March 4. The 
Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
BosE J.-The appellant Kashmira Singh 
has been 
convicted of the murder of one Ramesh, a small boy 
aged five, 
and has been sentenced to death. 
He was 
granted special leave to appeal. 
Three other persons 
were tried along with him. They were his brother 
Gurudayalsingh, his 
nephew 
Pritipalsingh 
(son 
of 
Gurudayal), a boy of eleven, and one Gurubachansingh. 
Gurudayal and Pritipal have been acquitted. Guruba-
chansingh confessed and was convicted. He 
was also 
sentenced to death. He has not appealed here. 
The murder was a particularly cruel and revolting 
one and for that reason it-will be nececssary to examine 
the evidence with more 
than ordinary care lest 
the 
shocking nature of the cnme induce an instinctive 
reaction 
against a dispassionate judicial scrutiny 
of 
the facts and law. 
. 
The prosecution case is this. The deceased Ramesh 
was the son of P.W. 48 L.P. Tiwari who was the Food 
Officer at Gondia at the relevant date. 
The appellant 
Kashmira Singh was an Assistant Food Procurement 
Inspec~or there. On the 1st of July, 1949, Tiwari 
found the appellant and Harbilas 
(P.W. 31) 
getting 
rice polished at a certain rice mill. At that date the 
polishing of iice was prohibited by a State law. 
Tiwari accordingly reported the matter to the 
Deputy 
Commissioner 
of 
Bhandara. 
He 
suspended 
the 
1952 
Kashmira Singh 
v. 
State of Madhya 
Pradesh. 
1952 
Kash

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