STATE OF U.P. versus BOOTA SINGH & OTHERS

Citation: [1979] 1 S.C.R. 298 · Decided: 22-08-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
298 
STATE OF U.P. 
v. 
BOOTA SINGH & OTHERS 
August 22, 1978 
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND P. N. SHINGHAL., .lJ.J 
Appeal against acquittal-/11terfer,:011ce-Scope of-High Court misreedi11g 
evidence, rc1·e1sing ;udg1nent of Sessians Court-ln1porta11t conclusions arril•eri. 
at by Sessions Court not displaced-High Court overlooking important circu111-
stances which fully prore the case. 
C 
Code of Critnifl(J.l Procedure 1898-Sec. 288-Confession of <tccu~·ed-Use 
J) 
E 
of-Corro~oration by other independent evidence-Necessity of-Satisfactiou 
and support in extrinsic e~'idence-Use of. 
Identification Parade-Necessity of keeping accused baparda 
explained-·~ 
El'idence of identification-When of weak character. 
Three of the four accused persons were related to one another and the fourth 
was ai friend. 
One of them entered into a deal for the purchase of' )and but 
found it difficult to finance the transa..:tion. 
The prosecution alleged that all 
ef them entered into a conspiracy to obtain money by means fair and foul 11nd 
in pursuance of that they hit upon a plan to hire a taxi, take possession of it, 
de away with the driver and utilise the sale proceeds for payment of the pur-
chase money.· By givin$ a false reason thev hired a taxi in Dehra Dun, drove 
it by a forest road ood after killing the driver they changed the nutnber phttc 
and reached Bombay. 
When they tried to sell the taxi in Bombay a discre--
pancy was noticed in the chassis number whereupon respondent No. t made 
good his escape. Eventually respondent no. 1 was caught. 
He made a con-
fessional statement before a magistrate detailing various parts played by each 
of the accused. 
The Session Judge convicted all the respondents under ss. 302 
read with s. 34 IPC and also under s. 120B. 
All the acc;used were convicted 
of various other offences. 
On appeal the High Court reversed the judgment of the Sessions Judge and 
acquitted all the respondents on the ground· that (i) since the confession Clf 
respondent No. 1 was not voluntary no reliance could be placed on it; (ii) tile 
evidence of identification is a1 very weak type of evidence and should be closely 
scrutinised before reliance could be placed on it; and (iii) the statements of 
P. Ws. 5 and 7 before the trial court were inconsistent with their statements 
G 
made before the committing magistrate. 
H 
After special leave to appeal to this Court was granted to the State three 
respondents surrendered.. while one remained "'bsoonding. 
One of the three 
later died. 
HELD : (1) The High Court committed errors of law and fact on most 
vitaY points. It refused to draw interences from proved facts and has taid down 
legally erroneous principles on such vital and crucial ellidence 
as 
that 
or 
identification which .is a valuable piece of e~idence. On the question of identifi· 
cation it has laid down wrong law on the basis of which it failed to consMer 
• 
• 
!J.P. STATE V. BOOTA SINGH 
299 
that evidence. 
Regarding the confession of the respondent it has not made a 
correct apprcach which is to take the 
confession and then to 
find out how 
much of it is corroborated by other independent evidence. The confcssio,n wa-; 
discarded on irrelevant grounds based on pure speculation. Normally ·tbis 
Court does not interfere with an order of acquittal passed by the lligh Cout t 
but in this case the High Court has, on the one hand misread the evidence· and 
completely oYcrlooked son1e of the in1portant circumstances which proved the 
prosecution case and on the other while setting: aside the 
judgrnent of 
fhe 
Session Juclge l1as failed to displace the important reasons given and circum· 
stances relied on by the Sessions Judge. There are substantial and compelling 
reruions for setting aside the order of acquittal passed in favour of respondent 
No. I. [333 0-H, 334 A-DJ 
(2) (a) The High Court was 
not justified in 
rejecting the confession or 
doubting its veracity on the supposed belief that respondent No. 1 was in police 
cust0dy from the time he was produced before the magistrate to the time· when 
the statement was recorded. 
Before recording the confessional statement the 
n1agistrate put a number of questions to the accused to satisfy himself !hat the 
confession \\'as being made voluntarily and without any coercion or undue 
influeucc. 
The respondent stated that he was making the confession to speak 
the truth. 
The magistrate took care to see that there was no poli.::e officer 
present

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