# BIHAR STATE v. KAPIL SINGH (Bhargava, /.)

- **Citation:** [1968] 3 S.C.R. 810
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1968-04-18
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeals Nos. 141 and 142 of 1965
- **Bench:** S. M. Sikri, J. M. Shelat, V. Bhargava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/bihar-state-v-kapil-singh-bhargava-4346
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

Mimi.er charge-Evfdence. of child witrwss-Non-disclosure of names
of culprlls-Confined 1n pollCe custody-Corroborative evidence, 8Uspici ..
ous-Whether conviction can be sustained,
Appellants D and R, and respondent K were charged for the murder of
a lady. The deceased who waa sleeping with her niece-a child aged about
11 years, \Voke up on hearing sounds while some miscreants were steal ..
ing things in the house. She called out to the child. Two of the miscreants rushed at her and another killed her. The child pretended to be
asleep, but did not cry out of fear, and continued lying on her cot till
dawn. In the morning the child came out of the room and started
weeping. On the enquiry of a passer-by, she told him aliout the mmdtt,
and a report was lodged in the police station. Her statement was recorded but she refused to disclose the names of the culprits as her mother
had forbidden her lest the persons named might kill her. D, K and R
were apprehended. A chadar and quilt stained with human blood were
seized from R's room, and eartops and its container ~rom a room in the
house <ii D and his brother. The child was taken to police station, who
3 days thereafter at about midnight disclosed
the names of the three
culprits. She named K to be the actual killer and D and R as the attackers.
Subsequently the child and her mother's statements were recorded under
s. 164 Cr. P.C., and then the child was allowed to return home. D, K
and R were convicted by the Sessions Judge under ss. 302 and 34 I.P.C.
The High Court, in appeal, acquitted K holding that it was not safe to
base any conviction on the solita;y testimony of the child witness, but
upheld the convictions of D and R, as the evidence of the child witness
was corroborated by the recoveries. D and R appealed to this Court
against the convictions and the State against K's acquittal.
HELD : The convictions could not be sustained. [820 CJ
There were a number of circumstances indicating that it would not
be quite safe to rely on the child witness' evidence. It was very unlikely
that she could have continued or pretended to be asleep the whole of the
time. In the morning she did not disclose the names of the culprits to
the past.er-by. The conduct of the passer-by in not trying to find out the
aames from the child appeared to be quite unnatural. The explanation
that her mother had warned her not to disclose the names lest she be
killed by the persons named by her, was not convincing. At no stage the
. suggestion wa• that the thieves themselves had threatened to kill the child
if she disclosed their names. She could not, therefore, be under any fear
at the time when she met the passer-by and others. Further the illegal
confinement by the police was reprehensive and very adversely . affected
the value of the evidence obtained by the police. The very fact that she
was questioned at the odd hour of midnight made it obvious that c.ompulsion was being used on her to disclose the names. Clearly the police was
acting against law in keeping the child confined in t~ police stati~n wit~
a police constable posted all the time as her companion. The failure dr
mother to appear as a witness at the Sessions Trial, was another example
of the unsatisfactory or unreliable conduct of the investigation of the
present case. U she had come in the witness-box, it seemed that she
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
B
D
E
H
BIHAR STATE v. KAPIL SINGH (Bhargava, /.)
811
could not have suppoi;ed the prosecution case, so the unconvincing
excuse was put forward that she disappeared on the day fixed for her
evidence, even though she was· staying at the same place as her daughter
and was lookin1 after her during the trial of the case. It is also significant
that according to the child her mother had told the police that she had
not forbidden the child to disclose the names of the culprits. [816 A-F;
817 A-D; 818 A-C]
Even the corroborative evidence adduced,
was 'of very doubtful
character.. No reasonable explanation was given by the p

## Text

810
STATE OF BIHAR, ETC.
I',
KAPIL SINGH, ETC.
April 18, 1968
(S. M. SIKRI, J. M. SHELAT AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.)
Mimi.er charge-Evfdence. of child witrwss-Non-disclosure of names
of culprlls-Confined 1n pollCe custody-Corroborative evidence, 8Uspici ..
ous-Whether conviction can be sustained,
Appellants D and R, and respondent K were charged for the murder of
a lady. The deceased who waa sleeping with her niece-a child aged about
11 years, \Voke up on hearing sounds while some miscreants were steal ..
ing things in the house. She called out to the child. Two of the miscreants rushed at her and another killed her. The child pretended to be
asleep, but did not cry out of fear, and continued lying on her cot till
dawn. In the morning the child came out of the room and started
weeping. On the enquiry of a passer-by, she told him aliout the mmdtt,
and a report was lodged in the police station. Her statement was recorded but she refused to disclose the names of the culprits as her mother
had forbidden her lest the persons named might kill her. D, K and R
were apprehended. A chadar and quilt stained with human blood were
seized from R's room, and eartops and its container ~rom a room in the
house <ii D and his brother. The child was taken to police station, who
3 days thereafter at about midnight disclosed
the names of the three
culprits. She named K to be the actual killer and D and R as the attackers.
Subsequently the child and her mother's statements were recorded under
s. 164 Cr. P.C., and then the child was allowed to return home. D, K
and R were convicted by the Sessions Judge under ss. 302 and 34 I.P.C.
The High Court, in appeal, acquitted K holding that it was not safe to
base any conviction on the solita;y testimony of the child witness, but
upheld the convictions of D and R, as the evidence of the child witness
was corroborated by the recoveries. D and R appealed to this Court
against the convictions and the State against K's acquittal.
HELD : The convictions could not be sustained. [820 CJ
There were a number of circumstances indicating that it would not
be quite safe to rely on the child witness' evidence. It was very unlikely
that she could have continued or pretended to be asleep the whole of the
time. In the morning she did not disclose the names of the culprits to
the past.er-by. The conduct of the passer-by in not trying to find out the
aames from the child appeared to be quite unnatural. The explanation
that her mother had warned her not to disclose the names lest she be
killed by the persons named by her, was not convincing. At no stage the
. suggestion wa• that the thieves themselves had threatened to kill the child
if she disclosed their names. She could not, therefore, be under any fear
at the time when she met the passer-by and others. Further the illegal
confinement by the police was reprehensive and very adversely . affected
the value of the evidence obtained by the police. The very fact that she
was questioned at the odd hour of midnight made it obvious that c.ompulsion was being used on her to disclose the names. Clearly the police was
acting against law in keeping the child confined in t~ police stati~n wit~
a police constable posted all the time as her companion. The failure dr
mother to appear as a witness at the Sessions Trial, was another example
of the unsatisfactory or unreliable conduct of the investigation of the
present case. U she had come in the witness-box, it seemed that she
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
B
D
E
H
BIHAR STATE v. KAPIL SINGH (Bhargava, /.)
811
could not have suppoi;ed the prosecution case, so the unconvincing
excuse was put forward that she disappeared on the day fixed for her
evidence, even though she was· staying at the same place as her daughter
and was lookin1 after her during the trial of the case. It is also significant
that according to the child her mother had told the police that she had
not forbidden the child to disclose the names of the culprits. [816 A-F;
817 A-D; 818 A-C]
Even the corroborative evidence adduced,
was 'of very doubtful
character.. No reasonable explanation was given by the prosecution of
how blood came on the quilt and chadar n:covered from the house of R.
During the season in which and at the place where the murder took
place quilt would not be in use. The child did not state that any of the
persons was carrying the quilt or chadar or was trying to conceal his
features by wrapping in them. The explanation for these blood stains by
R had not been accepted and was not very satisfactory; but the failure of
an accused to give an adequate explanation does not lead to an inference
that these blood stains must be those of ·the blood of the deceased.
[818 D--HI
Similarly the recovery of the eartops and
its container was highly
suspicious. It WJIS not established that the room from which it was recovered waa of D. All the formalities for conducting the search were not
complied, as a witness stated that the police inspector was already in the
courtyard Qf the house, when the witness arrived. Further the prosecution
made out that D W.. foolish enough to keep in his room an article connected with the murder about which there could be no difficulty <if identification, because the container had on it the name of the daughter-in-law
of the deceased and it was kept in a manner to attract the. attention
straightaway. [819 C-H]
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeals
Nos. 141 and 142 of 1965 an<l 78 of 1968.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated
December 23, 1964, February 9, 1965 of the Patna High Court
in Criminal Appeal No. 545 of 1962.
D. P. Singh, K. M. K. Nair and N. M. Ghatatate, for the
appellant (in Cr. A. No. 141 of 1965) and respondent (in Cr. A.
No. 142 of 1965).
R. C. Prasad, for the appellant (in Cr. A. No. 142 of 1965) .
. R. C. Prasad, for the appellant (in Cr. A. No. 78 of 1968).
U. P. Singh, for the respondent (in Cr. A. No. 141 of 1965).
'The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Bhargava, J. These three appeals all arise out of a trial held
by the Additional Sessions· Judge of Patna in respect of a charge
of murder of an old lady Rohini Kuer, wife of Munshi Chaudhary, residing in village Lohra, Police Station Biikhtiarpur,
District Patna. The prosecution case was .that, on the night bet,
ween 17th and 18th JUJ).e, 1961, Rohini Kuer, who was aged
;ibout 60 years, wlis sleeping on a cot in the courtyard of her
house and, nearby, on a smaller cot was sleeping her niece,
I
I
812
SQNDIB COURT llBPORTS
(1968] 3 S.C.R.
Manti, who was *mt 11 years of age.
Munshi Chaudhary
himself, his sons al daughter-in-law were at Ranchi where one
of his sons had been posted as a Block Development Officer.
During the night, Rohi.aj Kuer had closed all the doors and had
put a lock from inside on the connecting door between the female apartment and tlie male apartment of the house.
Some
time during the night, three miscreants entered the female apartment by cutting a hole in the wall on the western side of the
connecting door and began to ransack different rooms of the
house. Rohini Kuer woke up on hearing the sounds, while the
miscreants were breaking open the boxes and removing the articles.
She got up from her bed, accosted the thieves and also
called out to Manti. Two of those persons rushed at her, threw her
down on the verandah and inflicted several injuries on her body.
One of them brought out a sword which was kept in the southern
room adjacent to the verandah and cut her neck in the light of
the electric torch which had been lighted by the third person.
Thereafter, they took away cash, clothes and ornaments having
broken open several boxes. They also took away an iron safe.
Manti pretended to be asleep and did not cry out due to fear.
At oiie stage, one of the thieves suggested that she should also
be killed, but another one intervened and suggested that it was
unnecessary to commit her murder.
Manti continued lying on
her cot till dawn when she came out of the house through the
hole which had been cut by the thieves and started weeping.
While she was in the Baithak of Munshi Chaudhary, one Bhagwat Prasad, who was passing by, enquired what the matter was.
She told him that Daiya had been cut.
'Daiya' was the term
by which she used to address Rohini Kuer who was her father's
sister. Bhagwat Prasad then entered the female apartment through the same hole and found the dead body of Rohini Kuer
lying in the verandah.
As he came out after seeing the dead
bodv, Ramkishun Chaukidar also arrived.
Both of them then
went to Harnaut Police outpost four miles away where Bhagwat
Prasad lodged a First Information Report which was recorded by
Assistant Sub-Inspector Jagdish Singh at about 8 a.m., the date
being 18th June, 1961. He sent a copy of the Report to Bakhtiarpur Police Station for institution of a case and himself proceeded to the scene of occurrence at 10.30 a.m. It is said that,
in the meantime, Manti's mother had arrived and she toJd Manti
not to disclose the names of the offenders lest she should also be
killed.
Jagdish Singh, A.S.I., inspected the place of occurrence,
noticed the hole that had been cut in the wall and actually went
in>ide through the same ogening.
He found the dead b<J4y
lvinz in the verandah and also notice some footprints on the
floor near the dead body.
A blood-stained sword kept in a
sheath was also found by him in a room adjacent to the verandah where he also found another foot print in blood stains. He
A.
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
BlHAR STATE v. KAPIL SINGH (Bhargava, I.)
813
prepared the inquest repmt. an~ sent the .dead. ~y of Rohini
Kuer for post-mortem exammatton. The mvest1gat10n was then
taken over by Inspector of Police, Lakshmi Narain Pathak, who
took statements of various witnesses. According to him, though
he was able to record a detailed statement of Manti covering about
two pages. Manti refused to disclose the names of the culprits
and started weeping when she was asked to give out the names.
He sent a requisition to Patna for a police dog and a photographer. Three days later, on 21st June. the police dog and
the photographer arrived in village Lohra, and the Investigating Officer, Pathak, on reaching the spot let loose the dog. The
dog went to the house of Ramujagar · appellant and entered a
room from which one Dasuti Chadar and one quilt stained with
blood were seized by the Investigating Officer Pathak.
Thereafter, the dog went to the house of Kapil Singh who, in the
meantime, had left his aouse on seeing the police arriving. He
was, however, arrested by the Dafadar. Subsequently. the dog
led the police to the house of Deo Singh and his brother Singheshwar where, on a search having been made, a pair of gold eartops were recovered from a niche situated in a room facing east.
The eartops were kept in a cardboard case which bore the inscription "Malti Singh, Women's College Ranchi, P.N.U.N.C.H.2".
In the inner cover of the case "M. Singh" had been written in
English and the names of the dealers were also printed on it.
The gold eartops and its covering box were seized by the investiE · gating officer.
On 22nd June, 1961, Jagdish Singh, A.S.I.,
Harnaut Police outpost, on searching a well situated about three
quarters of a mile away from village Lohra, recovered a Godrej
Iron
Safe
which
was
taken
out
and
-was·
found
to contain articles including Insurance Policies in the name of
Nandkishore Singh son of Munshi Chaudhary.
F
G
H
The girl Manti was taken to the Police Station by the In-
\'estigating Officer on the 19th June, 1961, apparently because
she had failed to disclose the names of the thieves whom she
had seen inside the house and who had committed the murder
of Rohini Kuer in her presence. Manti was kept at the Police
Station and was repeatedly questioned.
According to the InYestigating Officer, Lakshmi Narain Pathak. she was allowed to
Yi~it her sister's place in between, but she was always provided
with a police escort. . At about midnight on the night between
21st and 22nd June, 1961, she is alleged to have disclosed the
names of the three culprits.
The names that she gave were
those of Kapi! Singh alias Kapildeo Singh,
Ramujagar
Sin~h
and Deo Singh alias Surajdeo Singh.
She then amplified tlie
statement by stating that it was Kapil Singh who had actunlly cut
t~e neck of R,ohini Kuer and that Ramujagar Singh and Kapil
Smgh were the two persons who had attacked her. Deo Singh,
'
814
SUPlU!MB C:OUl.T llBPOr.TS
[1968] 3 S.C.R.
according to her, was the .person who was llashing the torch to
give light to his two companions.
She added that Deo Singh
had said that she also should be killed, whereupon Kapil Singh
said that she was a child and they should leave her.
Subsequently, on 28th June, 1961, Manti and her mother
were both produced ·before a Magistrate who recorded their statements under section 164, Criminal Procedure Code. Mllnti was
allowed to go home after this statement of hers had been recorded by the Magistrate.
Samples of the footprints of the three
suspects were compared with the footprints in blood found at
the scene of occurrence by the police Expert on Footprints and
evidence was sought to be given by him to prove that one of the
footprints tallied with the footprint of Deo Singh.
The Additional Sessions Judge accepted as true the evidence
of Manti. He further held that there was corroboration of her
evidence at least against two of the· persons Ramujagar Singh
and Deo Singh. His finding was that the quilt and the chadar,
which were pr1?ved stained with human blood, having been 'recovered from the house of Ramujagar Singh, provided very good
corroboration of the case against him of participation in this
murder. Similarly, the Additional Sessions Judge held that the
recovery of the eartops with the cardboard box containing on it
the name of the daughter-in-law of Rohini Kuer as· well as the
circumstance that the blood-stained footprint found on the spot
tallied with that of Deo Singh appellant furnished very good
corroboration of the case against Deo Singh. These circumstances indicated that Manti had given truthful evidence and, consequently, he convicted all the three persons for the offence under
s. 302, I.P.C., read with s. 34, I.P.C. All the three persons
were sentenced to imprisonment for life for this offence. Kapildeo was, in addition, found guilty of the substantive offence
under s. 302, I.P.C. for committing the murder of Rohini Kuer
and he was sentenced to imprisonment for· life for that offence.
Deo Singh was further found . guilty of an offence punishable
under s. 411, I.P.C., and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. All the sentences were directed to run
concurrently. Singheshwar, the brother of Deo Singh. who was
also tried with the other three persons, was acquitted of all the
charges.
The three conv1cu:o persons, Kapil Singh, Ramujagar Singh
and Deo Singh appealed to the High Court at Patna. The appeal
came up before a Division Bench.
Both the learned Judges
constituting the Bench held that it was not safe to base any conviction on the solitary testimony of Manti and, consequently,
they gave Kapil Singh the benefit of doubt, set aside his conviction and sentences, and acquitted him.
On tlie learned Judges
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
BIHAR STATE v. KAPIL SINGH (Bhargava, !.)
815
was of the opinion that the conviction of the other two persons
Ramujagar Singh and Deo Singh should be upheld on the basis
of the evidence of Manti as corroborated by recoveries, in the
case of Ramujagar Singh, of the blood-stained chadar and quilt, ·
and, in the case of Deo Singh, of the eartops and the cardboard box. Reliance was also placed •OD the circwnstance that
the footprint of Deo Singh in blood was found close to the scene
of occurrence. The other learned Judge was, however, of the
opinion that, in the circwnstanees of this case, it was not safe
to rely on the evidence of Man,ti at all' against any of the pecsons
charged with the offence and, consequently, he expressed the
opinion that Ramujagar Singh and Deo Singh should also be
given the benefit of doubt anti acquitted. Thereupon, the appeal
of these two appellants was referred to a third Judge who agreed
with the former and held that the conviction and sentences of
these two persons must be' upheld.
As a res)llt, the appeal of
Ramujagar Singh and Deo Singh was dismissed.
Criminal Appeal No. 141 of 1965 has been brought by special leave by the
State of Bihar against the acquittal of Kapil Singh, while Criminal Appeal No. 142/1965, also
by special leave, has been
brought up by Ramujagar Singh against the judgment of the High
Court upholding his conviction.
In adqition, Deo Singh has
also come up to thi• Court by special leave. Special leave to
him was granted at the time of hearing of the two Criminal Appeals Nos. 141 and· 142 of 1965. All the three appeals are,
therefore, being dealt with together in this one judgment.
The facts enumerated above . make it clear that the crucial
question that has to be determined in this case is whether the
evidence of Manti can be relied upon for the purpose of convicting Kapil Singh, or upholding the conviction of Ramujagar
Singh and Deo Singh.
She is the only witness who, according
to the prosecution, actually witnessed the murder and saw the
assailants. It is, of course, clear that the fact that Rohini Kuer
was murdered on the night between the 17th and 18th June, 1961
in her house by some thieves, who entered the house by breaking open a hole in a wall, is amply proved by the prosecution
evidence. The point that needs to be examined is whether these
three persons Were amongst the thieves who committed the crime.
Manti is a young. girl whi:ise age was recorded as 12 years at
the time when she was examined in the Court · of Session in
July, 1962, so that, at the time of the incident, she was only
11 years of age.
While such a child witness can often be expected to give out a true ve~ion because of her innocence, there
is always the danger in accepting the evidence of such a witness
that, under influence, she. might have been coached to give out
a version by persons who may have influence on her. In this
case; there are a number of circumstances which, in our.
'
81.6
SVPRBMB COUllT RBPOJ.lTS
(1968) 3 S.C.R.
opinion, indicate that it will not be quite safe to rely on her evidence. She stated that she.was lying on a cot close to the cot
on which her aunt Rohini Kuer was sleeping; She actually saw
her aunt J:>eing killed and, according to her, there was a threat
to her life also when Deo Singh said that she should also be
k.illed, though she esc!!ped .when Kapil
Singh asked that
sh~ should be spared because she was a 1:hild. It does not seem
to be very likely that a child in such circumstances could have
continued to pretend that she was asleep. In the morning, according
0to her, when she came out, she met Bhagwat Prasad
before meeting her mother and she told Bhagwat Prasad that
'Daiya' had been killed. It -is surprising that she did not at that
stage disclose the names of any o( these persons to Bhagwat
Prasad. In fact, the conduct of Bhagwat Prasad is not trying
to find out the names of the persons who had committed the
murder from Manti when she told him about it appears to be
quite unnatural.
It cannot be expected that, on hearing of the
murder, he would quietly enter the house to discover the dead
body without at all asking Manti whether she had seen the culprits and who they were. She even met others like the Chaukidar Ramkishun, and witnesses Shyam Ram and Gursahay before she met her mother. In her evidence, she tried to explain
her failure to disclose the names by stating that her mother had
warned her not to disclose the names lest she should also be
killed by the persons named by her. This explanation sought to
be advanced on behalf of the.prosecution will not at all explain
why there was no disclosure of names by Manti to the. persons
mentioned above whom she met ·before ·this warning was given
to her by her mother. At no stage has any suggestion been put
forward by the prosecution that the thieves themselves had put
her in fear of life by threatening to kill her if she disclosed their
names.
She could not, therefore, be under any fear at the
time when she met Bhagwat Prasad, the Chaukidar and others
and there· was no explanation at all why their names were not
ascertained from her or ·voluntarily disclosed by her at that
stage.
A
B
c
D
E
F
The subsequent story put forward by the prosecution to explain the belated disclosure of the names is highly suspicious
G
and, in fact, indicates that, in this case, the investigation by
the Police has not
been honest.
The Investigating Officer,
Lakshmi Narain Pathak, himself states that he arranged that the
girl be taken to the Police Station on 19th June, 1961 and she
was then kept confined there up to the 28th .Tune, 1961, until
her statement was recorded by a Magistrate under s. 164, Cr.
H
P.C.
We fail to understand under what law the police was
authorised to keep this girl confined in the police station for so
many days.
Pathak, of course, tried to convert this confine-
A
ll
c
-
D
E
F
G
H
B!HAR STATE V, KAPIL SINGH (Bhargava, /.}
817
meilt into protective custody, adding that she was allowed togo to her sister's house in between; but Manti herself. contradicts Pathak. According fo her, she was not allowed to leave
the ·Police Station at all until the 28th June. Her statement is.
that she was kept in a room in the Police Station along with a
constable and the room was only opened· when it was necessary
for her to go out to ease herself. In the day-time, she was.
allowed to come up to the door of the room, but was not allowed to move away from the door. Each night she was shut inside·
the room and was kept shut like that for five or six nights.
It
is true that her mother was allowed to visit her, but this illegal
confinement by_ the Police was reprehensive and very adversely
affects the value of the evidence obtained by the police under
these circumstances. In .this connection, it is significant to note
that,' even according to Pathak, the names were disclosed to
him for the first time by Manti at midnight on the night between
21st and 22nd June, 1961. The very fact. that she was questioned at the odd hour of 1J1idnight makes it obvious that compulsion was being used on her to make her state the names of
these persons. ·If it was true, as alleged by Pathak, that she
was being Kept there for her personal protection only, there was
no reason at all why she should have been questioned during the
night when a child of her age should certainly have been allowed
to take undisturbed rest. Pathak has tried to justify the course
adopted by him by saying that he thought it to be proper to
keep a girl of tender age in police station even for weeks for
taking a statement, because he wanted to know the truth.
It
is surprising that a police officer should hold such views. Clearly. he was acting against law in keeping that girl confined. in the
police station with a police constable posted all the time as her
companion. The excuse that she needed protection is belied by
the circumstance that at least for one day from 18th June to
19th June she was allowed to remain out of police custody and
there is
no suggestion that any protection was afforded to her
during that time. It was only on 19th June that she was taken
to the Police. Station obviously because she had refused to give
the names as desired by the Police.
The Inspector of Police,
Pathak, purported to give evidence as if, in Bihar, it is nothing
extra-ordinary to keep such a witness in police custody. We hope
that there is no such practice in that State. Manti, whose statement implicating these three persons was obtained in these cirsumstances, cannot, therefore, be held to be a reliable witness,
particularly in view of the circumstance that she did not disdose
their names even at the earlier stage when she had not been put in
fear of her life by ·her mother.
In this connection, importance must attach to the circum-
~tance tha.t her mother, wh~ is said to have put the fear of life
m her, did not enter the witness-box at all when the case was
"I .
818
SUP!lBMB COUll.T UPOllTS
[1968] 3 S.C.R.
tried in the Court of Session. She was, no doubt, examined
by the Police and her statement wllS abo obtained under s. 164,
Cr.P.C., by producing her before the Magistrate. She was pre-
~nt in the Court of Session .when Manti was being examined, _
but, when her turn for examination came, she disappeared,
The Public Prosecutor naturally came out with the explanation
that she had been got. at by the accllfCd.
We are unable to
accept this explanation for her non-appearance. It seems that,
if she had come in the witness-box, she would not have supported
the prosecution and, . consequently, the excuse was put forward
that she disappeared on the day fixed for her evidence, even
though she was staying at the same place as her daughter Manti
and was looking after her during the trial of the case. In this
connection, it is significant that, according to Manti herself,
her mother had told the Inspector of Police that she had not
forbidden her to disclose the names of the culprits. This seems
to be another example of the unsatisfactory or unreliable conduct
of the investigation in the present case.
Apart from these circuptstances, which throw considerable
doubt on the evidence of Manti, even the corroborative evidence sought to be adduced jly the prosecution appears to us to
be of a very doubtful character. As against Ramujagar Singh,
the corroborative evidence put forward is that a quilt and a
Dasuti chadar stained with human blood were recovered from his
house;
bu~ no reasonable explanation is sought to be given by
the prosecution of how the blood came to be on these two articles, if it was the blood of the deceased Rohini Kuer. It is to
be noted that the murder took place in June, 1961 and at least
a quilt will not be in use at ail during that season in the plains
of Bihar.
A suggestion seems to have been put forward that
Ramujagar Singh had taken both these articles to wrap himself
in them in order to conceal his identity.
This suggestion is,
however, clearly nullified by the evidence of Manti who does
not state that any one of the persons, whom she saw in the
house at the time of m11rder, was carrying a quilt or a chadar
or was trying to conceal his features by wrapping himself in
them. Even the alternative explanation that they may have become blood·stained when Ramujagar
Singh came home with
Rohini Kuer's blood on his body is, on the face of it, highly
improbable. Manti herself says that ·au the culprits washaj their
hands in the house where the murder was committed before
leaving that house. The quilt and the Dasuti chadar had sprinkling of blood and not mere blood-smudges.
Obviously, such
sprinkling of blood could not appear on the quilt and the Dasuti
<:hadar by their coming merely in contact with Ramujagar Singh
after his return to his house, even if some blood-stains remained
en his body when he came home. It is true that the explanaA
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
H
BIHAR STATE V. KAPIL SINGH (Bhargava, /.)
819
tion for t.':lese blood stains put forward on behalf of Ramnjagar
Singh that they were from some skin sor~ of one ·of the chil·
dren of his family has l}Ot been accepted and is not very satis·
factory; but the failure of an accused to give an adequate explanation does not lead to an inference that these blood stains
must be those of the bloOd of the deceased. The circumstances
seem to indicate that there is no connection at all between these
blood stains and the murder of Rohini Kuer.
Similarly, the recovery of the gold eartops and the cardboard
box, which contained them, is highly suspicious. For one thing,
the prosecution have failed to establish that the room, from
which they were recovered, was that of Deo Singh appellant.
Deo Singh, even according to the prosecution witnesses, was
· employed outside this ;@age and had only come on a visit from
his duty. The room, from which ~y w::ro recovered, is des·
cribed as a room for keeping cow-dung cakes. The Investigating Officer naturally could not know who in the family of Deo
Singh was in actual occupation of this room, while the only
recovery witness, Narsingh Mahto, had to admit that he did not
;ee Deo Singh eating or sleeping in that room, or keeping things
in that room, or taking them out of that room. In fact, when
further cross-examined, he admitted that he never saw how that
room was used. Obviously, he was not in a position to estab·
Jish that this room w~s in the occupation of Dea Singh appellant.
The circumstances of the recovery are also doubtful. According
to Inspector of Police, Pathak, he observed all the formalities
required to be observed when searching the house of Deo Singh.
One of the formalities that has to be observed is that the searching officer should give his personal search to the witnesses before
entering the premises to be. searched and should similarly search
the witnesses also in the presence of one another. If the Inspec·
tor means that this was done by stating that all formalities were
observed, he is contradicted by Narsingh Mahto who says that,
on his arrival, he found the Inspector in the inner courtyard of
the house, which means that he had already entered the house
without observing the formalit.ies.
At the time of-recovery, it
is said that the cardboard box containing the eartops was kept
in a corner of the room covered by 'a nμmber of tiles.
The
pro~.e~ution sto7 !hus pUf)XlrtS to make out that Deo Sin~h was
foo11s11 enough ·1V At:Cj) in his roon1· an :irttcle connected with ~he
murder about which there could be no difficultv of identification.
because the cardboard box hrut on it the name of the daughter;
in-law of Rohini Kuer and he kept that box in such a manner
under the tiles in the cow-dung room that the attention of the
Pofac wouid straightaway be attracted toy;;mls it. The whole
story of recovery of this cardboard box with the eartop• thus
sounds highly improbable.
S20
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1968] 3 S.C.R.
The only other· circumstance, which has been l"eiied upon
A
by the prosecution, is>the identity of the blood-stained footprint
with that of the sample footprint of Deo Singh appellant. We
do not think that it is necessary to discuss it in detail, because
that evidence is, in its very nature, a very weak type of evi-
.dence and, in fact, in the High Court even the third Judge, to
whom the case was referred on difference of opinion, held that
B
it would not be safe to rely on this evidence at1P discarded
it.
In these circumstances, .it is clear that it is not at all pos-
:sible to. hold that the prosecution succeeds in proving the charge
.against any of these three persons. As a result, Cr. Appeal No.
141/ 1965 filed by the State is dismissed, while the appeals of
C
Ramujagar Singh and De<> Singh are allowed, their conviction
and sentences are set .aside and they are acquitted of the offences
with which they were charged.
They shall be released forthwith.
Y.P.
Appeal 141/65 dismissed.
Appeals 142/65 and 78/68 allowed.