1968 (12) TMI 94 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction & Sentence based on Inculpatory Evidence

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, affirming the appellant's conviction and sentence. The court found the inculpatory parts of the ... - Issues Involved:1. Admissibility of the appellant's statement recorded by the village Mukhiya.2. Reliance on circumstantial evidence for conviction.3. Evaluation of the appellant's explanation and defense.4. Legal principles regarding the acceptance and rejection of parts of a confession or statement.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Admissibility of the Appellant's Statement:The primary issue is whether the statement of the appellant recorded by a village Mukhiya before he was handed over to the police is admissible in evidence. The court found that the statement (Ex. 6) was voluntarily made and thus admissible. The High Court rejected the appellant's contention that the statement was coerced, noting that no suggestion of assault or coercion was made to the witnesses who had taken the appellant to the Mukhiya. The appellant's claim that he was forced to sign a blank paper was also dismissed as it undermined his argument of coercion.2. Reliance on Circumstantial Evidence:The evidence against the appellant was entirely circumstantial. The High Court found several incriminating circumstances against the appellant:- He was seen washing blood-stained clothes shortly after the murder.- He possessed blood-stained exercise books and a knife at the time of his apprehension.- The injuries on the victim could have been caused by the knife found with the appellant.- The appellant had a cut injury on his left hand, consistent with a scuffle.- The appellant's explanations for his injuries and possession of blood-stained items were deemed unacceptable.3. Evaluation of the Appellant's Explanation and Defense:The appellant's defense included a statement under s. 342 Cr. P.C. and his statement recorded by the Mukhiya. He claimed that the murder was committed by one Lal Mohan Sharma and that he was a helpless spectator. He also provided an inconsistent explanation for his injury, initially blaming a herdsman. The High Court found these explanations implausible and inconsistent with the evidence. The appellant's claim of being forced to sign a blank paper was also rejected.4. Legal Principles Regarding Acceptance and Rejection of Parts of a Confession:The appellant's counsel argued that the court must consider the statement as a whole and cannot selectively accept parts of it. The court, however, held that while the entire statement must be considered, the jury is not bound to give equal weight to all parts. They may accept parts that are corroborated by other evidence and reject parts that are inherently improbable or contradicted by other evidence. The court cited legal principles from Taylor's Law of Evidence and Roscoe's Criminal Evidence, supporting the view that the jury can believe parts of a confession and disbelieve others if justified by the circumstances.Conclusion:The High Court's judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court, affirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant. The court found that the inculpatory parts of the appellant's statement, corroborated by other evidence, conclusively proved his guilt, while the exculpatory parts were inherently improbable and contradicted by the evidence. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.