STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus KARTAR SINGH

Citation: [1971] 1 S.C.R. 56 · Decided: 18-03-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

56 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
v. 
KARTAR SINGH 
March 18, 1970 
{M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J., A. N· RAY AND I. D. DUA, JJ.J 
Indian Evidence Act, (1 of 1872) s. 145-Entire statement nwde 
before Committal Court stated to be mdde under pressure-Whole state-
ment read and then, witness asked to explain-Whether s. 145 complied 
with. 
. 
A 
B 
A father and. son were charged with committing seven murders. K, 
C 
·an eye witness, narrated the incident in the committal court and stated 
that the two accused· armed with a pistol and sword respectively entered 
the house of the deceased, the son atiacked the victims 
and the father 
fired when his son was caught by M. 
R stated that the son made a 
confession to him with regard to the· murder. 
In the sessions cou!rt K 
turned hostile, and the public prosecutor read to K the whole of her 
·statement and asked whether it was her statement. 
She admitted that 
it was a true record of what she stated before the committal court, but 
D 
.stated that it was a false statement given under ··police plressure'. 
The 
same was the case with R.. 
Both the statements of K and R before the 
committal court were brought on record of the Sessions trial as Exhibits, 
and the defence did not then object to their being read. 
The Sessions 
Court convicted the father and son relying on the statements of K and 
M before tho committal court, of another eye witness, and of S who 
had heard the report of pistol shot and saw the accused armed with 
their respective weapons coming out of the deceased's house. 
The High 
E 
Court, on appeal, affirmed the conviction of the son, but rejecting the 
testimony of K, R and S acquitted the father holding that he had taken 
no share in the affair. 
In appeals, by the State against the father's 
acquittal, and by the son again•t his conviction this Court :-
HELD : The High Court was in error in not reading the statements. 
The objection taken to the admissibility of the statement of K was that 
F 
every single passage which diffe'red from her testimony in the Court of 
Session w•' not put to her with a view to affording her an opportunity 
of explaining why she had made a 
contrary statement. 
No doubt, if 
there were some passages here and there which differed from her later 
version, lhat procedure would have been necessary. 
Herc the witness 
admitted that her statement was truly recorded in" the Committal Court. 
She only denied that it was a true statement because she said that she 
was made to depose that way by the police. It would have been useless 
G 
to point out the discrepancies between the two statements because her 
explanation would have been the same. 
In these circumstances, the 
requirements of '· !4S of the Indian Evidence Act were fully complied 
with and the earlier statement could be read as evidence in the Sessions 
Trial. [61•C·E] 
The same was tho case with R. These two witnesses 
also made 
• statement under s. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 
'These 
H 
statements were, of co11rse, not evidence but were corroborative of what 
had been stated earlier in the Committal Court. 
The attention of the 
witnesses was drawn to the pauages from those statements alse> and their 
explanation only was that they were made under police pressure. 
The 
A 
B 
RAJASTHAN V. KARTAR (Hidayatul/ah, C.J.) 
57 
High Court should have accepted the evidence of S. because there was 
sufficient corroboration of his evidence. There \Vas, thus, enough evid-
ence on record to convict the father also. [61 E; 62 BJ 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal Nos. 
\14 and 115 of 1969. 
Appeals by special leave from the judgmejllt and order dated 
May 6, 1968 of the Rajasthan High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 
624 of 1967. 
· 
K. Baldev Mehta, for the appeJlant (in Cr. A. No. 114 of· 
1969). 
E. Udayarathnam, tor the appellant (in Cr. A. No. 115 of 
c 
1969). 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
S. P. Sinha ~nd S. K. Bisaria, for the respondent (in Cr. A. Ne. 
114 of 1969). 
K. Baldev Mehta, for the respondent (in Cr. A. No. 115 of 
169). 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
i 'dayatullah, C.J. This judgment will govern the disposal· of 
Criminal Appeals Nos. 114 and 115 of 1969. They have been 
filed by special leave granted by this Court .. Criminal Appeal No. 
114 of 1969 has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the 
1cquittal oi Kartar Singh and Criminal Appeal No. 115 of 1969 
has been tiled by Gurj ant Singh son of Kartar Singh who has been 
convicted under s. 302

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