LexTHIMMA ALIAS THIMMA RAJU versus STATE OF MYSORE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
B c D E F G " THIMMA alias THIMMA RAJU v. STATE OF MYSORE April 2, 1970 21S [M. H!DAYATULLAH, C.J., A. N. RAY AND I. D. DUA, JI.] El'idence Act (I of 1872), ss. 8 and 17-Evidence oJ absconding- Re/e.•ancy and weight-Information, already with po/ice-Discovery as a ,.,·rn/t of accused's statement-If admissible under s. 17-Extra ;udicial confession, weight of. The appellant was convicted of the offence under s. 302 l.P.C. Being a pauper he was defended by counsel at State expense. The entire evidence was circumstantial and the dead body, when it was recovered, was in a dec~mpo;ed state and was incapable of identification. Therefore, this Court, examined the evidence afresh, contrary to its settled practice and came to the conclusion that the evidence on record establisr.ed the appel- lant's guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. With respect to three items of evidence, namely, (I) an extra-judicial confession by the appellant to his nephew; (2) the 'recovery of the dead body as a result of the appellant's statement; and (3) the conduct of the appellant in absconding immediately aftu the police suspected his complicity in the crime, HELD : (I) An unambiguous confession if admissible in evidence, and free from suspicion suggesting its falsity, is a valuable piece of evi- d0;:nce which possesses a high probative force because it emanates directly frcm the person committing the offence. The Court, must however be satisfied that it is voluntary and was not the result of inducement, threat or promise as contemplated by s. 24 of the Evidence Act and that the surrounding circumstances do not indicate that it was inspired by improper or collateral considerations. For this purpose, the court must scrutinise all the relevant factors, such as the person to whom the confession is made. the time and place of making it, the circumstances in which it was made. and finally, the actual words used. [224 CJ In the present case, the pers6n to whom the extra-judicial confession was made was not a person in authority and there was no question of any inducement, threat or promise. Nor- has any cogent reason been suggested as to why the appellant should have made an untrbe confession within 24 hou'rs of the disappearance of the deceased. The appellant appears to have been impelled by some inner urge to take the assistance of his nephew to go to the place of occurrence and see what haryi;ned to the dead body, Such behaviours cannot be considered unnatural. The confession is free from any taint which would throw suspicion on its voluntary character 8l)(I it has a ring of truth in it. The fact that during the investigation the nephew was also suspected of being' involved in the murder would also 'hot cast any doubt on the voluntary character of the confession or on its true nature, because, it was his knowledge derived from the confession that invited suspicion on l;iim. Further, though the evidence of the ndt>hew does not require corroboration, the finding of the dead body and other articles and other evidence on record corroborate it in material particulars. Therefore the confession to the nephew is admissible in evidence and !ieing true, deserves to be acted upon. [224 E-H] (2) When the nephew was suspected of complicity he would nave in all probability, disclosed to the police the existence of the dead body and 216 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1971 J l S.C.R. the other articles at the place where they were actually found. Therefore, it would, in the circumstances of the case, be unsafe to rely upon the information given by the accused, leading to t_he discovery of the dead body, for proving his guilt. [225 D'F]" (3) Evidence of abscondiPg is relevant as evidence of conduct under s. 8 of the Evidence Act but the guilty mind of the accused is not !bi: only conclusion that could be drawn by the Court, because, even innocent persons when suspected of grave crimes are tempted to evade arrest. (225 G-Hl CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No . .245 of 1969. A B Appeal by special leave frqm the judgment and order dated July 17, 1969 of the Mysore High Court in Criminal Appeal No. c 111 of 1968 and Criminal Referred Case No. 2 of 1968. K. M. K. Nair, for the appellant. S. S. Javali and S. P. Nayar, for the respondent. The Judgment of tllu Cow• • .. vrn; delivered by Dua, J. The appdL•n' ,, ~onvi~ied by the Sessions Judge, .Shimoga, under s. 302, LP· . lOr 1he
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.