# Hem Ra] v. Till Sta" qf - A.jmer Mahajan C. ] 1

- **Citation:** [1954] 1 S.C.R. 1133
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1953-06-30
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 1953
- **Bench:** Mehr Chand Mahajan C. J, VIVIAN BosE, Ghulam Hasan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/hem-ra-v-till-sta-qf-a-jmer-mahajan-c-1-251
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

Constitution of India, art. 136(1)-Principles gorcrning the
exercise of powers by the Supreme Court under art. 136(1)-Confessions-Whether can be corroborated by evidence already in possession
of police.
Unless it is shown that execeptional
and special circumstan~
ces exist that substantial and grave injustice has
been
done and
the case in question presents features _of sufficient gravity to war~
rant a review of the decision appealed against, the
Supreme Court
does not exercise its overriding powers under art. 136 ( 1) of the
Constitution and the circumstance
that the
appeal
has
been
admitted by special leave does not entitle the appellant to open
out the whole case and contest all the findings of fact and raise
every point which could be raised in the High Court.
Even at the
final hearing only those points can be urged which are fit to be
urged at the preliminary stage when the leave to appeal is asked
for.
·The contention that confession cannot be corroborated by the
use of materials already in the possession of the police is devoid
of force. A confession made and recorded even during a trial can
be corroborated by the evidence already recorded.
It may .be made
and recorded in the court of committing magistrate and materia,ls
already in the possession of the police may be used for purpose ef
corroboration.
1954
Tiu Stat• qf
Raja.sthan
v.
TM Mewar T ,,,_
Iii< Mthq J,td.,
, ·Bhilwara
and Ot/urs.
Ghulam Ha.son ]. '
1954
Marth 17.
1954
Hem Ra].
v.
Till Sta" qf
-
A.jmer
Mahajan C. ] 1
1134
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
Queen v. Thompson ([189}] 2 Q.B. 12) and Mata
Emperor (A.I.R. 1931 Oudh 166) referred to.
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION :
Appeals Nos. 58 and 87 of 1953.
[1954]
Din v. The
Criminal
Appeal by Special
Leave granted by the
Supreme
Court on the 30th June, 1953, from the Judgment and
Order dated the 25th April, 1953, of the Court of the
Judicial Commissioner at
Ajmer in Criminal Appeal
No. 13 of 1953 and Criminal Reference No. 19 of 1953
arising out of the Judgment and Order dated the 18th
March, 1953, of the
Court of the
Sessions
Judge
at
Ajmer in Sessions Trial No. 1 of 1953.
Appeal by Special
Leave
granted by the Suprem~
Court on the 27th October, 1953, from the Judgment
and Order dated the 25th April, 1953, of the Court of
the judicial Commissioner at Ajmer in Criminal Appeals
Nos. 14 and 15 of 1953 and
Criminal
Reference No. 15
of 1953 arising out of the
Judgment and Order dated
the 18th March, 1953, of the Court of the Sessions Judge
at Ajmer in Sessions Trial No. 1 of 1953.
Bakhshi Tek Chand (Bhagwan Singh and Rajinder
Narain, with him) for appellant in
Criminal
Appeal
No. 58 of 1953.
B. D. Sharma for respondent in· Criminal Appeal
No. 58 and appellant in Criminal
Appeal No. 87 of
1953.
K. N. Agarwala for .respondent in Criminal Appeal
No. 87 of 1953.
1954. March 17. The Judgment of the
Court was
delivered by
MAHAJAN C. J.-Criminal Appeals
Nos. 58
and
87 of 1953 relate
to
the
same
occurrence,
and
arise out of a common
judgment delivered
by
the
Judicial Commissioner of Ajmer.
Both
of them
are
before us by special leave granted by this
court
on
· different occasions.
Unless it is shown that
exceptional
and special
circumstances exist that substantial and grave injustice
has been
done
and the
case in
question
presents
features of sufficient gravity to warrant a review
of
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1135
the decision appealed
against,
this
court
does not
.exercise its overriding
powers
under
article 136(1)
of the
Constitution
and the circumstance that because
the appeal has been admitted by special leave does not
entitle the appellant to open out the whole
case and
contest all the findings of fact and raise every point
which could be raised in the High Court. Even at the
final hearing only those points can be urged which
are fit to be urged at the preliminary stage when the
leave to appeal is asked for. The question for consideration is
whether this test is satisfied in
either
of
these two appeals.
After
hearing the lear

## Text

S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1133
and a District Judge could only mean a Judge of the
High
Court for
Rajasthan established
under
the
Rajasthan High Court
Ordinance 1949 and a District
Judge of
or in Rajasthan within the meaning of
section 5 (ix) of Ordinance No. IV of 1950.
Accordingly
we hold that the appointment of Shri Sukhdeo
Narain
was perfectly valid.
We accordingly set aside the
order of the
High
Court but without
costs,
as the
respondent
is not
represented.
Agent for the appellant : R. H. Dhebar.
HEM RAJ
().
THE STATE OF AJMER
(And Connected Appeal)
[MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C. J., VIVIAN BosE
and GHULAM HASAN JJ.]
Constitution of India, art. 136(1)-Principles gorcrning the
exercise of powers by the Supreme Court under art. 136(1)-Confessions-Whether can be corroborated by evidence already in possession
of police.
Unless it is shown that execeptional
and special circumstan~
ces exist that substantial and grave injustice has
been
done and
the case in question presents features _of sufficient gravity to war~
rant a review of the decision appealed against, the
Supreme Court
does not exercise its overriding powers under art. 136 ( 1) of the
Constitution and the circumstance
that the
appeal
has
been
admitted by special leave does not entitle the appellant to open
out the whole case and contest all the findings of fact and raise
every point which could be raised in the High Court.
Even at the
final hearing only those points can be urged which are fit to be
urged at the preliminary stage when the leave to appeal is asked
for.
·The contention that confession cannot be corroborated by the
use of materials already in the possession of the police is devoid
of force. A confession made and recorded even during a trial can
be corroborated by the evidence already recorded.
It may .be made
and recorded in the court of committing magistrate and materia,ls
already in the possession of the police may be used for purpose ef
corroboration.
1954
Tiu Stat• qf
Raja.sthan
v.
TM Mewar T ,,,_
Iii< Mthq J,td.,
, ·Bhilwara
and Ot/urs.
Ghulam Ha.son ]. '
1954
Marth 17.
1954
Hem Ra].
v.
Till Sta" qf
-
A.jmer
Mahajan C. ] 1
1134
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
Queen v. Thompson ([189}] 2 Q.B. 12) and Mata
Emperor (A.I.R. 1931 Oudh 166) referred to.
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION :
Appeals Nos. 58 and 87 of 1953.
[1954]
Din v. The
Criminal
Appeal by Special
Leave granted by the
Supreme
Court on the 30th June, 1953, from the Judgment and
Order dated the 25th April, 1953, of the Court of the
Judicial Commissioner at
Ajmer in Criminal Appeal
No. 13 of 1953 and Criminal Reference No. 19 of 1953
arising out of the Judgment and Order dated the 18th
March, 1953, of the
Court of the
Sessions
Judge
at
Ajmer in Sessions Trial No. 1 of 1953.
Appeal by Special
Leave
granted by the Suprem~
Court on the 27th October, 1953, from the Judgment
and Order dated the 25th April, 1953, of the Court of
the judicial Commissioner at Ajmer in Criminal Appeals
Nos. 14 and 15 of 1953 and
Criminal
Reference No. 15
of 1953 arising out of the
Judgment and Order dated
the 18th March, 1953, of the Court of the Sessions Judge
at Ajmer in Sessions Trial No. 1 of 1953.
Bakhshi Tek Chand (Bhagwan Singh and Rajinder
Narain, with him) for appellant in
Criminal
Appeal
No. 58 of 1953.
B. D. Sharma for respondent in· Criminal Appeal
No. 58 and appellant in Criminal
Appeal No. 87 of
1953.
K. N. Agarwala for .respondent in Criminal Appeal
No. 87 of 1953.
1954. March 17. The Judgment of the
Court was
delivered by
MAHAJAN C. J.-Criminal Appeals
Nos. 58
and
87 of 1953 relate
to
the
same
occurrence,
and
arise out of a common
judgment delivered
by
the
Judicial Commissioner of Ajmer.
Both
of them
are
before us by special leave granted by this
court
on
· different occasions.
Unless it is shown that
exceptional
and special
circumstances exist that substantial and grave injustice
has been
done
and the
case in
question
presents
features of sufficient gravity to warrant a review
of
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1135
the decision appealed
against,
this
court
does not
.exercise its overriding
powers
under
article 136(1)
of the
Constitution
and the circumstance that because
the appeal has been admitted by special leave does not
entitle the appellant to open out the whole
case and
contest all the findings of fact and raise every point
which could be raised in the High Court. Even at the
final hearing only those points can be urged which
are fit to be urged at the preliminary stage when the
leave to appeal is asked for. The question for consideration is
whether this test is satisfied in
either
of
these two appeals.
After
hearing the learned counsel
in both the appeals we are satisfied that none of them
raise any questions which fall within the rule enunciated above.
On the 16th of July, 1952, Mangilal deceased, partner
of firm Rambhajan Mangilal 0£
Bijainagar, received by
express delivery post a letter
Exhibit P-5 in a closed
.cover Exhibit P-6.
This letter was actually
delivered
to Mangilal's son Laduram who, on reading it,
found
that it purported to have been
sent by "Bhayankar
Daku Dal"
demanding payment of
Rs. 5,000 at 6-30
p.m. on the 17th of July at
the crossing near the 27th
milestone on
the
Ajmer-Bijainagar
road
and saying
that "if you cheat or do 420 or in case you inform the
police, no other punishment except that of
death . will
be meted out to you and you will be shot dead and
made to
lie
on
the
ground." Laduram took
the
miginal letter with the envelope to his
uncle Ramjas
at Ajmer and both of them saw the Superintendent
of
Police :and gave him the letter and the envelope
and
asked for immediate protection and investigation.
The
Superintendent of Police, however, took no action in
this behal£. Mangilal failed to comply with the demand
to pay. On the 17th of July about 9-30 p.m. when he
was sitting at his shop and his munim Gajanand was
writing the accounts, two persons came from the neighbouring street.
One of them was dressed in a
khaki
suit and the other in a blue suit.
The man in blue
<lemanded from Mangilal a reply to the
letter,
while
the man in khaki entered the shop and removed Mangilal' s gun which was hanging in a canvas case from :I
1954
fle~Raj
v.
The Stajl of
Ajmer
Mahajo;C.].
1954
H1111 Raj
v.
711' /;tale of
4jmn
Mahajan C. ].
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1954]
peg on the wall of the shop.
On Mangilal's
replying
that his son Laduram had taken the letter to
Ajmer,
the person dressed in blue
fired from a Mauser
pistol
and shot
Mangilal dead.
The two assailants then
ran
away. On the way they threw the Mauser pistol and
khaki clothes in the street at a short distance
from
the shop.
Mangilal died shortly afterwards.
The
first
information report was lodged by Nand Lal (P. W. 1)
immediately after the occurrence at 9-45 p.m.
In thi&
report Nand Lal described the occurrence in the following terms:
"From the lane two men, one of whom was wearing khaki clothes having a hat on the head
and the
other wearing blue clothes with a blue cap on the head
came near Mangilalji and stood there.
The man with
khaki clothes said something to Mangilal and the man
with blue clothes went straight inside
the
shop
and
picked up Man gila\' s gun from behind the door shutter
and brought it out and stood
near the khaki clad man,.
and at that time shot Mangilal with a pistol he had."
The prosecution challaned
four persons, viz., Hem
Raj, appellant in
Criminal
Appeal No. 58 of 1953,
Hukum Singh, respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 87
of 1953, Milap Singh and Abdul Hakim.
It was alleged that all the four of them had
acted
in conspiracy
and realised money from rich persons through threatening letters and in pursuance of the conspiracy
Exhibit
P-5 was sent. Hem Raj and Hukum Singh were arrested on the evening of the 26th July at
Bijainagar
and
were sent to jail on the 28th of
July, 1952.
On the
30th of July, 1952, Hem Raj
made a confession in iail
before a Magistrate.
On the 5th of
September,
1952,.
at the first hearing of the case before the committing
Magistrate, the confession was retracted
by
means
of
an application made through counsel and a number of
grounds were given why the confession
was inadmissible and not of any value.
All the
accused
persons
denied the charge. Milap Singh
and
Abdul Hakim
were acquitted by the learned Sessions
Judge who however convicted Hem Raj
and
Hukum
Singh
of the
different offences with which they had been eharged.
He'in Raj and Hukum Singh appealed to the Judicial
...
'
•
~.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1137
Commissioner at Aimer. Hukum Singh's ·appeal was
al!owed but that of Hem Raj was dismissed. As stated
already, Hem Raj's appeal before us is by special leave
and
the
State
has
also
appealed
against the
acquittal of
Hukum Singh and that also
by
special
leave.
Dr. Tek Chand for Hem Raj raised three
points
before us : ( 1) That the
confession
was
inadmissible
in evidence, the prosecution having failed
to establish
affirmatively that it was free and voluntary
and
that
it was not preceded by any inducement to the prisoner
to make a statement held out by a person in authority.
It was said that as no direct or circumstantial evidence
of any kind
was available, the
police was straining
every nerve to get any one of the four persons arrested
confess, so that he may be given pardon and made an
approver.
The police was particularly keen to
make
somebody an approver because of their own
negligent
conduct in not giving protection to the deceased when
Laduram, his son, had approached the Superintendent
of Police with the threatening letter received by him
and that the police also had not been able to discover
how the pistol had been stolen from its owner.
It was
contended that Hem Raj was actually arrested on the
25th July and illegally kept in custody, that even
after remand by the Magistrate he was not immediately sent to jail but was taken to
the house
of the
Superintendent of Police and kept there for more than
four hours, that all these circumstances raised a
strong
suspicion against the voluntary character of the confession and showed
that the police was
making efforts
bv threats and inducements to extort a confession from
him.
It was further suggested that while Hem Raj
was in jail the Superintendent of Police paid
him
a
visit. There is no relevant
evidence
to
establish
this fact.
(2) That the Magistrate who recorded the confession
did not disclose his identity that he was a Magistrate
to Hem Raj and that instead of recording the confession in his court room he recorded it
in jail without
any sufficient grounds for doing so and this circumstance also vitiated the confessions.
1954
Hem Raj
N.
T1" Stat1 of
Ajm,r
MahajanC.j.
1954
Hem Raj
v.
The State of
Amer
Mahajan C. J.
1138
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
119541
(3) That there was no independent corroboration of
any of the material
facts
contained in the confession
and that whatever
material has
been
considered
as
corroboration by the courts below was already
in the
possession
of the
police
before the
confession
was
recorded and therefore the confession was merely
a
recital of facts already in possession of the
police and
was
modelled on it and
that the police
discovered
nothing in pursuance of
the
confession
and
their
knowledge about the material facts of the case was not
enriched in any manner by the confession
and therefore there was no evidence whatsoever
in
the case
on which the conviction of the appellant could stanc.
The learned Judicial Commissioner as
well as the
learned Sessions Judge considered all these contentions
and negatived them and there were valid reasons
for
doing so.
On the question whether the confession was
voluntary, there are concurrent findings of the courts
below and there are no grounds for going behind these
findings.
On the question whether
material particulars
of the confession
have been
corroborated, there are
again concurrent findings. All the arguments
addressed to us relate to the re-appreciation of evidence which
had been believed by the courts
below
and do not
warrant interference
by us
in the decisions
of the
courts below.
We have, however, also examined
these
arguments independently and we have no hesitation in
endorsing the views of the courts below.
As regards the voluntary nature of the
confession,
the significant fact is that the confession was made on
the 30th of July, that is, two days
after
Hem Raj
had been lodged in jail, and was not in police custody
or amenable to police influence.
He had
more than
36 hours to make up his mind whether to make a confession or not.
He is not a rustic but runs a cycle shop
in Bijainagar. It is noteworthy that Hukum Singh
was similarly situated and about whom an application
had been made that he was willing to confess. When
the Magistrate approached him he said that he would
only make a statement after
consulting
his lawyer
and
declined
to
make
any
statement.
Further
from the 30th of July till the 5th
of
September no
,.
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1139
steps were taken by Hem Raj to resile
from his confession.
There was ample time at his disposal to make
an application to the
Magistrate or to
the District
Magistrate that the confession had been extorted from
him by threats and inducement. On the 5th of September when an application was
made by
his
counsel
retracting the confession it was more in the nature of
an argument than in the nature of a detailed
statement of the facts and circumstances in which the confession had been made.
When examined under section
342, Criminal Procedure Code, he said that he made the
confession under threats held out by the
Superintendent of Police and Sri
Ram
Chandra,
Sub-Inspector.
He further said that the
Superintendent of
Police told_
him "that if I made a confession of my guilt,
I would
be made an approver ; the
Superintendent
of
Police
said that he was a Vaishya and as I too was a Vaishya
he would help me.
I told the
Superintendent of Police
that I would do as he asked me to do.
About
10-30
a.m. on the 30th
of July
Sub-Inspector Ram
Chanclra came to jail and compelled
me to make a confession."
The last portion was
clearly a lie as
there is
no evidence whatsoever that
Ram Chandra visited him
at the time the Magistrate recorded his confession.
The Magistrate who recorded the
confession has
been examined, and he states that he told the prisoner
that he was a Magistrate and that he complied with all
the requirements of law in
recording
the
confession.
The memorandum made by him shows that the following questions were put to Hem Raj: "Do you wish
to make a confession ?",
to
which Hem Raj
replied
"Yes".
"Are you making it of your own
free
will
and without the compulsion of anybody?"; the answer
was "Yes".
The third question
was "You
are not
bound to make a confession.
Do you understand this ?"
The answer
was "Yes". The fourth question
was :
"If you make a confession it may be used in evidence
against you.
Do you realize this ?"
The answer was
"Yes".
The last question was "Shall
I record
your
confession?"
The answer was "Yes".
It
was
after
these queries that a confession covering about 21 pages
and full of
detail~ which are precise
and cannot be
1954
Hem Raj
v.
The Stalt of
Ajmt"r
¥ ahajan C. j.
1954
HtmRaj
v.
·rht Slat• of
Ajmet
.Mohajan C.J,
1140
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[.1954]:
described as vague
was recorded.
The
police could
not even dream of these details
or make an effort to
tutor such a detailed confession to the prisoner
and it
is absolutely unthinkable that such a tutored confession could be narrated by Hem Raj to the
Magistrate
after 36 hours of any possible attempt made
to tutor
him.
As a matter of fact, some of the facts contained
in the confession and indicated later
were not
even
known to the police then.
The confession contained
the usual endorsement that the confession was
voluntary and all the necessary matters
had been explained
to the prisoner before he made the
confession.
It is
significant that the confession was
not retracted
till
Hem Raj took legal advice arid even then it was not
stated who supplied all the details
contained
in the
confession to Hem Raj. The allegations made by the
prisoner have been denied by the police
officers
examined and we are not inclined to accept those
allegations as true.
The circumstances
relied
upon
by
Dr. Tek Chand regarding the conduct of the police
before Hem Raj was lodged in jail
do not,
in our
opinion, affect the voluntary character of the confession.
The contention that the Magistrate
did
not tell the
prisoner that he was a Magistrate is also belied by the
Magistrate's evidence.
No doubt the
confession
was
recorded in jail th9ugh ordinarily it should have
been
recorded in the
court
house,
but that irregularity
seems to have been made because
nobody
seems
to
have realized that that was the appropriate
place to
record it but this circumstance does not affect
in this
case the voluntary character of the confession. Dr. Tek
Chand drew our attention to a quotation from Taylor's
Evidence, 11th Edn., page 588, para. 872,
and to the
decision in Queen v. Thompson('), in which it had been
emphasized that in order that evidence of a confession
by a prisoner may be admissible, it must
be affirmatively proved that such confession was free
and voluntary and that it was not preceded
by any inducement
to the prisoner to make a statement held out
by a
person in authority, or that it was not made until after
such inducement
had ·clearly been
removed.
The
(1) [1893] 2 Q. B. 12.
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1141
principle
laid
down in that
case is well
settled,
but we do not think that
Dr. Tek
Chand· is
right
in
contending that
that
principle has
not
beeQ
borne in mind by the courts below.
The mere bald
assertion
by
the prisoner that he
was
threatened,
tutored or
that
inducement
was offered
to
him,
cannot
be
accepted as true
without more.
There
is no material whatsover to hold
that
the
prisoner
was threatened or beaten. As a fact it has been found
by the cours below that that
assertion was untrue.
The story of tutoring, on the face
of it, is incredible.
It was not possible for the
police or anyone to
teach
the prisoner all that is contained in the confession.
As
regards inducement, again, there is no material
whatsoever and the circumstances relied upon are
not such
which raise a suspicion that the confession was extorted
by inducement.
Even
if
some
suspicion
of
this
character could be raised in this case, it has to be held
that the confession was made after the inducement had
dearly been removed.
As regards the
question
whether the confession
made by Hem Raj has been corroborated in
material
particulars, we
are satisfied that
there
1s
sufficient
evidence on the record to justify the
Judicial
Comm1ss10ner's
conclusion. P. W. 34, Gajanand, an eyewitness of the occurrence, deposed that
the man in
blue had the pistol and fired the fatal shot. This is in
line with
what had been stated by Nand Lal in the
First Information Report though later on he made
a
different statement.
The courts
below
accepted
the
evidence of Gajanand in preference to the statement of
Nand. Lal.
That being so, Gajanand's evidence fully
corroborates the confession of Hem Raj that it was he
who fired the fatal shot
and that he was dressed
m
blue uniform.
On the 18th
of July, 1952,
certain
articles were
recovered
from
Hem Raj's hc;mse-a hat, a mask, a
bush
shirt and a pistol.
These recoveries
are good
independent evidence
in
corroboration
of the confession.
On the 0)th
July, 1952, certain other items
were admittedly recovered from Hem Raj's house and
these also corroborate the confession. Hem Raj also
1954
H'1n Raj
v.
The Stdtt of
4ftmr
Mahajan C.J,
1954
Hem Raj
v.
The Stat1 of
Ajmer
Mah•j•n C. ].
1142
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1954]
delivered to the . police a black
pair of socks, a slate
coloured muffler, a blue pair of shorts
and a torch.
These deliveries
further support the confession.
Then
certain recoveries
were made, as stated in the
confession, from
the
roof
of
Bansilal' s shop on 27th of
July, 1952.
These were a revolver
and a number
of
cartridges.
Lastly there is the recovery
of
the
gun
case :ind the gun. The learned Judicial Commissioner,
in these circumstances, was justified
in holding that
the confession
had been corroborated in respect
of
clothes worn by the assailant, and in respect of the
arms and ammunition and that it was also corroborated
by the removal of the latch from the shop of Hukum
Singh.
Dr. Tek Chand contended that the
recovery
of
clothes and delivery of arms
and ammunition by Hem
Raj to the police had been made before the 30th
of
July, when the confession was made,
and
that facts
within the knowledge of the police before the confession was made, could not be used as
evidence corroborating the confession.
For this proposition he placed
reliance on a decision of the Oudh Chief Court in Mata
Din v. The Emperor('), wherein it was observed that a
true confession made by a person who takes part in a
murder invariably
adds something to the
knowledge
already possessed by the
investigating
officer and that
is the greatest test of its truth.
In our opinion, the contention raised by the learned
counsel is not well founded.
In the first instance, it is
not correct to say that all the facts mentioned in the
confession were known to the police at the time when
the confession was made.
The police did
not know
anything about the
existence of 30 bore cartridges.
They did not know as to who had
written the letter
Exhibit P-5 and did not know who had gone to Beawar
to post it.
The police also did not
know that death
had
been caused by a shot
from a
Mauser
pistol
Exhibit P-19.
Be that as it may, we see no validity in
the contention that a confession
can only
be
corroborated by evidence
discovered
by the police after a
confession has been made and any
material that is
(1) A.I.R. 1931 Oudh 166.
'
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1143
already in their possession, cannot be put in evidence
in support of it. The decision in Mata
Din's case( )
does not
support the
view
contended
for.
Th<c~
decision
merely concerns itself
with the value
of a
confession
and does
not relate to
the nature
and
character of evidence that can be led to corroborate it.
It does not lay down the proposition that a confession
cannot be corroborated by use of materials already in
possession qf
the police.
A confession can
be made
even during a trial and the evidence
already recorded
may well be used to corroborate it.
It may be made
in the court of the committing Magistrate and materials already in possession of the
police
may well be
used for purposes of corroboration.
The
contention
therefore
that
evidence in possession
of the
police
before the confession was made cannot be used to
corroborate the confession, must be repelled.
The result is that the evidence in conjunction with
the
confession
satisfactorily
estabilshes
the
charge
under section 302/34, Indian Penal Code, against Hem
Raj and also satisfactorily proves the offence
under
section 386, Indian Penal Code.
Dr. Tek
Chand very
strong! y criticized
the
conclusion
reached
by
the
Judicial Commissioner that the letter
Exhibit P-5 was
posted by
Hem Raj.
He contended that from the
mere circumstance that Hern Raj was in Beawar on the
date the ktter was posted it could not be inferred that
it was posted by him.
We think that the criticism is
not valid and the inference drawn in the circumstances
of this case by the courts below could not be said to be
unreasonable.
As regards the State's appeal against Hukum Singh,
clearly the confession of Hem Raj cannot be used as
substantive evidence against him.
The learned
public
prosecutor
contended
that
Hukum
Singh
was the
writer of the letter
Exhibit P-5
and
the evidence
furnished by the key Exhibit P-12 found in his trouser
pocket, coupled with the breaking of the door
latch,
and the circumstance that he was seen together with
Hem Raj, was sufficient
material
for his conviction.
We are unable to agree.
We are of the opinion that
the learned Judicial Commissioner was perfectly
right
(1) A.LR. 1931 Oudh 166.
B-98 S.C. India/59
195f
Hem Raj
v.
The State of
Ajmer.
Mahajan C. J.
1954
Hem Raj
v.
The State of
Ajmer.
Mahajan C. J.
1954
March 18.
1144
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1954]
in holding that this evidence by itself was insufficient
to uphold his conviction and that Hukum Singh was
entitled to the benefit of the doubt in respect of both
the charges found against him.
There is hardly
any
material
on
the
record to justify
our interference
with an order of
acquittal
in an appeal by
special
leave.
In the result both these appeals fail and
are
dismissed.
Appeals dismissed.
M. S. SHERIFF
f/.
THE STATE OF MADRAS AND OTHERS.
[MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C. J., MuKHERJEA,
S. R. DAs, VIVIAN BosE and GHuLAM HASAN JJ.]
CTiminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), s. 476B-Whether
appeal competent to the Suprenie Court from aT?_ order of Division
Bench of High
Court directing the filing
of a complaint
for
perjury.
Held that an appe~l is competent to the Supreme Court under
s. 476B of the Code of Criminal Procedure from an order of
a Division Bench of a High Court directing the filing of a complaint for perjury.
Also held. that
the simultaneous
prosecution
of civil and
criminal
proceedings regarding
the
same matter
is likely
to
embarrass the accused and so ord£narily, and in the absence of
special circumstances, the criminal
proceedings
should be
given
precedence and the
civil proceedings
should be stayed
pending
the termination of the criminal.
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION : Case
No. 281
of 1951.
Appeal under article 132
of the
Constitution
of
India from the
Judgment
and
Order dated
the 1st
August, 1951, of the
High Court of
Judicature
at
Madras in
Criminal Miscellaneous
Petitions Nos. 1261
and 1263 of 1951.
K. Rajah Iyer
Aiyangar, with him)
(R. Ganapathy Iyer and
M. S. K.
for the appellant/petitioners .
•