LexPALVINDER KAUR versus IHE STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
94 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1953) ' 1952 will be prevented from acting aµd pleading anywhere , .~K by virtue of the provisions of article 220 of the aswm• umar C •t · ·r · th f t t · Ghosh ons\1 u t10n. t 1 s, ere ore, no necessary o give and Another the "7ord "practise" the wider meaning contended for v. by the petitioner Aswini Knmar Ghosh. We must Arabinda Bose also remember that the general rnle relied npon may • and Another. be excluded by the subject or context. Das J. For reasons stated above, whether we adopt one or Oct. 22. the other method of construction suggested above, in my opinion, this petition cannot succeed and must be dismissed. · . Appeal allowed. Agent for the respondents: P. K. Bose. Agent for Intervener No. 1: P. K. Mukherjee. Agent for Intervener No. 2 : Sukiimar Ghose. Agent for Intervener No. 3: I. N. Slirojf, for P. K.Bose. Agent for Intervener ·No 4: Rajinder Narain. PALVINDER KAUR v. 'I'HE STATE OF l'UNJAB (RUF SINGH-Caveator) (MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR and BHAGWATI JJ.] Criminal trial-Circumstantial evidence-Duty of cou,rts to safeguard themselves against basing decision on suspicions-Co1ifes· sion-Must be accepted or rejected as a whole-Self exculpatory state·ment containing admission of incriminating facts-Ad'1nission of incriminating portion as true rejectiug exculpatory portion as false -Legalit·y-Indian Penal Gode, 1860, s. 201-Essential ingredients of offence. In cases depending on circumstantial evidence courts should safeguard themselves against the danger of basing their conclu- sions on suspicions howsoever strong. Rex v. Hodge (1838) 2 Lew. 227, and Nargnndkar v. Slate of Madhya Praclesh [19521 S.C,R, 1091 referred to. • ..... r - . ,. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 95 To establish a charge under s. 201, Iudia.n Penal Code, it is 1952 essential to prove that an offence has been committed (mere sus- picion that it has been committed is not sufficient); that the accus2d Palvinder Kaur knew or had reason to believe that such offence had been Mmmit- v. · ted ; and that with the requisite knowledge and with the intent to The State of screen the offender from legal punishment the accused caused the Punjab. evidence thereof to disappear or gave false information respecting such offence knowing or having reason to believe the same to be false. Where the evidence showed that a person had died, that his body was found in a trunk and was dis'COvered in a well and that the accused took part,in the disposal of the body but there was no evidence to show the cause of his death or the manner or circum- stances in which it came about: Held, that the accused could not be convicted for an offence under s. 201. A statement that contains self-exculpatory matter cannot amount to a confession, if the exculpatory matter is of some fact, which if true would negative the offence alleged to be confessed. A confession must either admit in terms the offence or at any rate substantially all the facl(s that constitute the offeuce. Narayanaswami v. Emperor (1939) 66 I.A. 66, referred to. It is a well accepted rule regarding the use of confessions an<l admissions that these must either be accepted as a whole or reject- ed as a whole and that the court is not competent to accept only the inculpll.tory part while rejecting the exculpatory part as inher- ently incredible. Emperor v. Bal!nmkand (1930) I.L.R. 52 All. 1011, followed. Where the statement made by the accused contained an admission that she had placed the dead body of her husband in a trunk and had carried it in a jeep and thrown it into a well, but with regard to the, cause of the death the statement made by her was that her husband hp.d accidently ta.ken a poisonous substance which was meant for washing photos erroneously thinking it to be a medicine: Held, the statement read as a whole was exculpatory in character and the whole statement was inadmissible in evidence and the High Court acted erroneously in accepting the former part of it and rejecting the latter part as false. Judgment of the High Court of Punjab reversed. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 1952. Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 3rd October, 1951, of the Hi§h Court of Judicature for the State of Punjab at Simla (Bhandari and Soni JJ.) in Cri- minal Appeal No. 86 of 1951, arising out of the Judgment and Order da
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.