LexNISHI KANT JHA versus STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A NISID KANT JHA v. STATE OF BIHAR December 2, 1968 B (M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J., J. C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI, c D E F G G. K. MITTER AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] Evidence-Statement made ta village Mukhiya before accused handed over to police-Whether admissible-Statement whether to be acted upon as a whole. The appellant was charged for the murder of a fellow student in a railway compartment. The appellant was noticed washing blood-stained clothes, and bathing in a river. He was taken to the village Mukhiya, where he made a statement and signed it. In this statement, he admit- ted his presence at the scene of murder but stated that the crime was committed by someone else, that he was injured by the knife of assailant when he tried to prevent the crime, and that when the assailant jumped off the train he 'followed suit being apprehensive of arrest on the charge of murder. Thereafter, the appellant was handed over to the police. A blood-stained knife, which could be the cause of the victim's injuries, was found on his person. Only an incised skin deep injury, which could not account for the profuse blood-stains on the clothes was found on him. In his statement under s. 342 C.P.C. the appellant denied all connections with the crime stating that he was injured at an- other place in a scuffle-blood-staining his clothes, books etc. he admitted being taken to the Mukhia's house, and stated that he had signed a blank paper there on being assaulted and threatened, but he denied making the statement in writing ascribed to him. In appeal to this Court, the appel- lant contended that the statement recorded by the village Mukhiya be- fore handing over the apoellant to the police was inadmissible in evidence; and i'f admissible, the statement had to be taken as a whole, and one portion of it could not be acted upon while rejecting the other. Dismissing the appeal, HELD : (i) The contention that the statement was not voluntarily made and as such could not be admitted in evidence must be rejected. No suggestion had been made to any one of the persons who had taken the appellant to the Mukhiya and had been tendered for cross-examina- tion that any one of them had assaulted the appellant nor was any sugges- tion made that the appellant had been coerced or threatened with dire consequences, if he did not make the statement. The appellant's own version that he was made to give his signature on a blank piece of paper cuts at the root of his case that he made a statement as a result of a threat or assault, for in that case, all that was necessary was to get his signature. [1041 E-G] (ii) In the circumstances df this case, the exculpatory part of the statement made before the Mukhiya being not only inherently impro- bable but also contradicted by the other evidence was rightly rejected and the inculpatory part was rightly accepted. [1047 DJ J H Rex v. Clewes, 4 Car. & P. 221; Hanumant v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, [1952] S.C.R. 1091; Palvinder Kaur v. The State of Punjab, [1953] S.C.R. 94, Emperor v. Balmakund, I.LR. 52 All. lOll and Narain Singh v. The State of Punjab, [1963] 3 S.C.R. 678; referred to. 1034 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1969] 2 S.C.R. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. A I 90 of I 966. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated February 4, 1966 of the Patna High Court in Government Appeal No. 14 of 1963. \r B. P. Singh and S. N. Prasad, for the appellant. B A. S. R. Chari and U. P. Singh, for the respo~dent. \...._.. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mitter, J. The main question involved in this appeal is, whether the statement of the appellant recorded by a village Mukhiya before he was handed over to the police is admissible in evidence; and if so, whether the court could reject a part there- of and rely on the remainder along with other evidence adduced to hold him guilty of an offence he was charged with. The evi- dence against the appellant was all circumstantial and there can be no doubt that if the statement before the Mukhiya is to be left out of consideration, the appellant cannot be held guilty. The appellant who was a student of a school in Jhajha was charged with the murder of a fellow student of the same school and robbing him of the sum of Rs. 34 on October 12, 1961. The Additional Sessions Judge, Santa] Parganas acquitted the appel- lant of both the charges but, in appeal, the High
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.