# KALAWATI AND ANOTHER v. 'THE s·rATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

- **Citation:** [1953] 1 S.C.R. 546
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1951-12-05
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeals Nos. 73 and 74 of 1952
- **Bench:** Patanjali Sastri C.J, Mukherjea, Chandrasekhara Aiyar, Vivian Bose, Ghulam Hasan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/kalawati-and-another-v-the-s-rate-of-himachal-pradesh-48
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

Iiidian Penal Gode (XLV of 1860), ss. 114, 201, 802-Gharges
under ss. 302 and 114, and s. 201-0onviction under s. 201 and
acquittal on other chafge in Sessions Gonrt-Oonviction nnder ss. 114
and 802. and acquittal under s. 201 i1b High Gozwt-Avpeal to
Su,preme Oourt-Poioer to restore ·conviction under s. 201, when
State ha.< not apvealed-Gonstitution of India, 1950, Art. 184 (1) ( c)
-Leave to appeal-Certificate of fitness-Death sentence passed by
.Judicial Commissioner.
The accused was charged under ss. 114 and 302, Penal Code,
with abetment of murder.
The Sessions Judge acquitted her of
this charge and convicted her under s. 201, Penal Code, for suppressing evidence of murder and giving false information.
On
appeal by the accused aswell as the State, the Judicial Commissioner set aside tbe conviction under s. 201 and convicted the
accused under ss. 114 and 302:
Held, that it was open to the Supreme Court, in an appeR.l
preferred by t·he accused, to restore the conviction under s. 201
on setting aside the conviction under ss.114 and 302, even though
the State had not appealed, as the acquittal under s. 201 was intimately connected with the conviction under ss. 114: and 302, and
took place only because the accus~d was co'nvicted of the main
charge under ss. 114 and 302.
Begu v.·King Emperor (52 I.A.191) applied.
The fact that in a p.rticular State there is only one Judicial
Commissioner as the ultimate appellate authority and there is no
Bench of tv.·o Judges as in the High Courts to confirm death sentences is not an adequate ground for granting a certificate that a
case where the death sentence has been awarded is a fit one for
appeal to the Supreme Court under article 134 (1) ( c) of the
Constitution.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE
JURISDICTION:
Criminal
Appeals Nos. 73 and 74 of 1952. Appeals under article 134 (1) (c) of the Constitution of India from the
Judgment and Order dated the i6th June, 1952, of
the Judicial Commissioner's Court, Himachal Pradesh
~t Simla, in ll,1urqer Referen9e No.~ of l91H ~~cl
• -
••
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
547
CriminaJ Appeals Nos. 10 of 1951 and 2 of 1952 arising .
out·of the Judgment dated the 5th December, 1951,
of the Court of the Sessions Judge, Mahasu, and
Sirmur Districts, Simla-I, in Sessions Trial No. 7 .of
1951.
Tara Chand Mathur for the appellant Kalawati.
Bawa Shiv Charan Singh for the appellant R!j.njit
Singh .
G. 0. Mathur for the respondent in both the appeals, the State of Himachal Pradesh.
1953. January 19. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR J. -One Kanwar Bikram
Singh was a relation of the Rana of Kuthar.
He
was a jamindar with some properties.
Bishanpura
within the police station, Solan. was his summer resort.
Manimajra in the Ambala, District was his
place of residence on the plains.
He had married in
1938 Kalawati, one of the two appellants.
She was
herself a daughter of the late Raja of Nalagarh
through a mistress.
Kanwar Bikram Singh was murdered during the
early mornirlg hours of 16th July, 1951, as he lay
asleep on the roof of his haveli or mansion at Bishanpura. He had several incised injuries on his person.
The case for the prosecution is that Ranjit Singh,
the other appellant, who was a distant cousin of the
deceased, committed the murder with the help and
conniva.nce of Kalawati. It is .stated for the prosecution that the two appellants developed an illicit
intimacy with ea0h other, and that they got rid of
Kanwar Bikram Singh, as he was cruel in his behaviour to Kalawati. The last act of ill-treatment is
said to have been on the 6th July, when Kanwar
Bikram slapped his wife.
Unable to endure the continued humiliation at the hands of her husband, and
in the hope that her intrigue with Ranjit Singh would
be facilit11tecl, Ralawati is said to have conspired with
Ranjit Singh to do away with her husba.nd,
7J
1958
Ka!awati
and Another
v.
The State of
Himacha!
Prade•h.
• •
548
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1953]
R1tnjit Singh wits charged with murder under

## Text

195,,
Jan.19.
546
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1953]
KALAWATI AND ANOTHER
v.
'THE s·rATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH.
[PATANJALI SASTRI C.J., MUKHERJEA, CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR, VIVIAN BOSE and GHULAM
HASAN JJ.]
Iiidian Penal Gode (XLV of 1860), ss. 114, 201, 802-Gharges
under ss. 302 and 114, and s. 201-0onviction under s. 201 and
acquittal on other chafge in Sessions Gonrt-Oonviction nnder ss. 114
and 802. and acquittal under s. 201 i1b High Gozwt-Avpeal to
Su,preme Oourt-Poioer to restore ·conviction under s. 201, when
State ha.< not apvealed-Gonstitution of India, 1950, Art. 184 (1) ( c)
-Leave to appeal-Certificate of fitness-Death sentence passed by
.Judicial Commissioner.
The accused was charged under ss. 114 and 302, Penal Code,
with abetment of murder.
The Sessions Judge acquitted her of
this charge and convicted her under s. 201, Penal Code, for suppressing evidence of murder and giving false information.
On
appeal by the accused aswell as the State, the Judicial Commissioner set aside tbe conviction under s. 201 and convicted the
accused under ss. 114 and 302:
Held, that it was open to the Supreme Court, in an appeR.l
preferred by t·he accused, to restore the conviction under s. 201
on setting aside the conviction under ss.114 and 302, even though
the State had not appealed, as the acquittal under s. 201 was intimately connected with the conviction under ss. 114: and 302, and
took place only because the accus~d was co'nvicted of the main
charge under ss. 114 and 302.
Begu v.·King Emperor (52 I.A.191) applied.
The fact that in a p.rticular State there is only one Judicial
Commissioner as the ultimate appellate authority and there is no
Bench of tv.·o Judges as in the High Courts to confirm death sentences is not an adequate ground for granting a certificate that a
case where the death sentence has been awarded is a fit one for
appeal to the Supreme Court under article 134 (1) ( c) of the
Constitution.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE
JURISDICTION:
Criminal
Appeals Nos. 73 and 74 of 1952. Appeals under article 134 (1) (c) of the Constitution of India from the
Judgment and Order dated the i6th June, 1952, of
the Judicial Commissioner's Court, Himachal Pradesh
~t Simla, in ll,1urqer Referen9e No.~ of l91H ~~cl
• -
••
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
547
CriminaJ Appeals Nos. 10 of 1951 and 2 of 1952 arising .
out·of the Judgment dated the 5th December, 1951,
of the Court of the Sessions Judge, Mahasu, and
Sirmur Districts, Simla-I, in Sessions Trial No. 7 .of
1951.
Tara Chand Mathur for the appellant Kalawati.
Bawa Shiv Charan Singh for the appellant R!j.njit
Singh .
G. 0. Mathur for the respondent in both the appeals, the State of Himachal Pradesh.
1953. January 19. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR J. -One Kanwar Bikram
Singh was a relation of the Rana of Kuthar.
He
was a jamindar with some properties.
Bishanpura
within the police station, Solan. was his summer resort.
Manimajra in the Ambala, District was his
place of residence on the plains.
He had married in
1938 Kalawati, one of the two appellants.
She was
herself a daughter of the late Raja of Nalagarh
through a mistress.
Kanwar Bikram Singh was murdered during the
early mornirlg hours of 16th July, 1951, as he lay
asleep on the roof of his haveli or mansion at Bishanpura. He had several incised injuries on his person.
The case for the prosecution is that Ranjit Singh,
the other appellant, who was a distant cousin of the
deceased, committed the murder with the help and
conniva.nce of Kalawati. It is .stated for the prosecution that the two appellants developed an illicit
intimacy with ea0h other, and that they got rid of
Kanwar Bikram Singh, as he was cruel in his behaviour to Kalawati. The last act of ill-treatment is
said to have been on the 6th July, when Kanwar
Bikram slapped his wife.
Unable to endure the continued humiliation at the hands of her husband, and
in the hope that her intrigue with Ranjit Singh would
be facilit11tecl, Ralawati is said to have conspired with
Ranjit Singh to do away with her husba.nd,
7J
1958
Ka!awati
and Another
v.
The State of
Himacha!
Prade•h.
• •
548
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1953]
R1tnjit Singh wits charged with murder under sec·
tion 302, Indian Penal Code, find Kalaw1tti was
Kalawati
and•Another charged under sections 114 and 302, Indian Penal
1958
v,
Oode, with abetment of murder, which was committed
The State of in consequence.
The Sessions Judge of Mahas'.l and
Himachal
Sirmur found Ranjit Singh guilty of the offence and
Prndesh.
sentenced him to the extreme penalty .of the law. He
Chandrasekhar• acquitted Kalawati of the offence of abetment under .
Aiyar J.
section 302 read with section 114, but found her
guilty under section 201, Indian Penal Code, as she
suppressed the evidence, screened Ranjit Singh, and
gave false information in respect of the murder;
and he sentenced her to five years' rigorous imprisonment.
'l'he two appellants preferred appeals to the Court
of the Judicial Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh, and
the State preferred an appeal against the acquittal
of Kalawati on the charge of murder.
The Judicial
Commissioner allowed Kalawati's appeal, aud set
aside her conviction and sentence under section 201.
At the same time, he allowed the State appeal against
her and convicted her of an offence under section 302
read with section 114, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced her to transportation for life.
Ranjit Singh 's
appeal was dismissed.
An application was made to the Judicial Commissioner under article 132 (1) of the Constitution for a
certificate that the case involved substantial questions
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution.
He granted the certificate, but he also added that the
case was otherwise also a fit one for appeal to the
Supreme Court under article 134 (1) (c). He thought
that as the confirmation of sentence of death as a
matter of practice prevailing in the High Courts was
generally made by a Bench of two Judges at least, it
was not fit and proper that the matter should rest
with his own decision sit.ting singly.
·
We feel· bound to state that the reason he has
given for certifying the case as a fit one for appeal
nnqer :J,rticle 134 (1) (c) is not sound. If iq any
>
S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPOR'l
1S
549
particular State there is only one Judicial CommisI95B
sioner as the ultimate appellate authority, and if the
Kalawati
confirmation of sentence of death has to be made by
and Another
him, the procedure laid down must be followed. 'ffie
v.
fact that there is not a Bench of two Judges as in The State of
the High Courts to deal with death sentences is not
Himachal
an adequate ground for converting the Supreme Court
Pradesh.
into an ordinary court of appeal and confirmation in Ohandrasekhara
..
such matters. It is unnecessary, however, to pursue
.iiya•· J.
·
4
this subject further, as we have heard the two appeals
on their merits as well.
'fhere is no substance in the constitutional points
sought to be raised on behalf ofthe appellants. Both
the appellants have made confessions of their guilt
which were recorded under section 164, Criminal
Procedure Code, but they retracted them in the
Committing Magistrate's court. 'fhe confessions were
used against them at the sessions trial and in their
examination under section 342, Criminal Procedure
Code. Each was asked about certain details of the
confession made by the other.
It was contended that if an accused person retracted his or her confession, it should not be used against
him or her at all, as it would contravene article 20
(3) of the Constitution; which provides that no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a
witness against himself. It is difficult to see the
force of this point. A confession has to be voluntary
before it can be used against a person making it, and
a magistrate is bound to satisfy himself that it is
being made without any inducement, threat or promise.
No person accused of a crime is bound to make
a confession, and if there is any compulsion or threat,
it has to be ruled out as irrelevant and inadmissible.
Sub-section (3) of article 20 does not apply at all to
a case where the confession is made without any
inducement, threat or promise. It is true that a
retracted confession has only little Yalue as the basis
for a conviction, and that the confession ·of one
accused is not evidence against a co-accused tried
jointly for the same offence, but can only be taken
'
550
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1953]
I95B
into consideration against him.
This deals with its
Kalawati
probative value and has nothing to do with any
and Another repugnancy to the Constitution.
v.
lt was also urged that as sub-clause (2) of article
The State 0! 20 of the Constitution provides that no person shall
;;:::::.
1
be prosecuted aI).d punished for the same offence more
nhan once, the Government cannot have any right of
Chandrasekhar• appeal against an acquittal. If there is no punishAiyar J.
ment for the offence as a result of the prosecution,
the sub,section has no application ; and secondly, an
appeal against an acquittal wherever such is provided by the procedure is in substance a co.ntinuation
of the prosecution.
Mr. Tarachand, who appeared
for Kalawati, ultimately desisted from pursning
these constitntional objections and addressed himself
to the merits.
A few facts and dates may be set out here as relevant
to the proper appreciation of the arguments addressed
on behalf of the appellants. The murder took place, as
already stated, on the open roof of Bikram Singh's
haveli about 4 a. m. on 16th July, 1951. Mst. Shibbi
(P.vV.3) who was- a cook in the family and who was
sleeping on the same roof at a little distance was the first
to wake up on hearing some strange noise, and she saw
a man going away from near her bed and getting down
the ladder at the back of the house. She raised a hue
and cry and found Bikram Singh fallen down from
his bed with his face downwards.
The other servants
in the house, namely, J ora and Dayaram and P.W.3's
husband, Nathu, who were all sl~eping downstairs,
came on to the roof.
One Laik Ram also arrived
with a gas light. Kalawati who was sleeping by the
side of her husband was not in her bed; she was
standing in the room near the steps. It was discovered that Bikram Singh had been the victim of a fatal
attack.
'l'he commotion reached-the ears of P .W. 7,
who lived at some distance, and he shouted to the
police station ·near by.
His cries brought on the
scene, at about 4-40 a.m. the
head
constable
(P.W. 24) to whom Kalawati made a statement to the
>
..
S.C.R. SUPREME CQURT REPORTS
55i
effect that some unknown dacoits had invaded her
house, killed her husband and robbed her of her
jewels.
As he was proceeding with the investigation,
the station-house officer, Solan, (P.W. 38) arriv'ed
and took it up.
1953
Kalawati
and Another
v.
The State of
Himachal
Various articles were recovered in the course of
Pradesh.
the investigation.
A scabbard was discovered on
16th July, 1951, itself by P.W.19 at a distanceofoneOhandrasekhara
furlong from the house of the deceased.
Two days
Aiyar J •
later, i.e., on 18th July, 1951, a shirt and a kachha
were discovered by P. W. 22 from underneath a stone
in a water channel about a mile further away.
On
24th July, 1951, Ranjit Singh was arrested, and it is
stated that he took the police and took out a sword
from a bush to the west of the place of occurrence a.t
a distance of 100 yards.
Some bushes had to be cut
at the instance of the accused before the sword
was
discovered.
Certain ornaments,
thirty-five
in number, and said to belong to Kalawati were unearthed by the accused himself on 27th October,
1951, from a room of his house in Basdhera.
They
were all in a. metal box, and the box was in an earthen pot which lay buried in the earth.
Kalawati made a confession on 28th July, 1951,
before the Magistrate, Sri Antani (P. W. 31). The
confession of Ranjit Singh was recorded by the same
Magistrate on 3rd August, 1951.
The material evidence in the case consists of these
two confessions and the evidence given by the maidservant, Shibbi (P.W. 3).
The
other
evidence
adduced relates to motive and the several discoveries,
on which the prosecution relies as
corroborative
circumstances to support the substantial truth of the
confessions, which were retracted even before the
Committing Magistrate by both the appellants.
It is abundantly clear that the relationship between
Kala.wati and her deceased husband, Bikram Singh,
was strained. As early as 1946, she had complained
against him of violence and threat to kill, and his
a,rms licence was cancelled. He was addicted. to drink,.
'.
552
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1953]
1953
and often used to quarrel with her and ill-treated her.
Since 1948 or thereabouts, Ranjit Singh, a fairly
Kalaw·au
1
·
d ·
h
·
f
c ose relat10n, entere mto t e p10ture as a
requent
and Another
v.
vi~itor at Manimajra or Bishanpura. He developed
The State of intimate relations with Kalawati, which led to suspiHimaoha!
cion of her misconduct with him.
The evidence of
Pradesh.
Balbir Singh, brother -of the deceased, Baldev Singh,
-
'
the manager of the estate, and Dropadi, mistress of
Oh•ndra8'khara h f b
f b d
d
·
d
p ur 1 2
d
A'
·J
t e at er o t e ecease , examme as . "s. , an
•yar ·
5 respectively, establishes this. In her confession
marked Exhibit P.A.A., Kalawati points out bow and
why her relations with her husband became strained,
and refers to her liaison with Ranjit Singh, the conspiracy between them to get rid of Bikram Singh, the
p.Jan laid out for this purpose, and the fatal assault
early in the morning of the 16th July. She throws the
entire blame on Ranjit Singh, to whose scheme she
agreed, out of sheer disgust for her husband.
She
telis us that she made a confession so as to remove
the load of sinfulness from her soul.
The confession of Ranjit Singh, Exhibit P.A.C.,
which was also retracted, is more or less on the same
lines, but he says that Kalawati was
primarily
responsible for the scheme, and be concludes it
thus:
"Had Kalawati not asked me, I would not have
thought of murdering Kanwar.
The fault of worsening the relations between
Kalawati and Kanwar lies on the Kanwar. He had
illicit connections,witb his father's keep."
He admits that be inflicted the injuries found on
Bikram Singh with a sword. Before the Committing
Magistrate, be ,did not impeach this confession in any
manner when be was examined under section 342.
But in the Sessions Court be went back on it as
regards every material detail almost, and stated that
it was entirely· dictated to the Magistrate by two
police Sab-Inspectors, and that he was a passive
listener to what they said. He signed the document
out of fear as the police had beaten him.
,
..
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
553
Shibbi, who on the fatal night was sleeping at some
l953
distance on the same terrace with Bikram Singh and
Kalawati
Kalawati, woke up on hearing a slashy noise, and and Anothei·
found Ranjit Singh pass near her bed and going do~n
v.
the ladder at the back of the house.
She raised
The State of
shouts, and the servants who were sleeping in the
Himachal
K 1
·
d
Pradesh.
courtyard downstairs came up.
a awat1 was stan -
_
ing near the steps of an adjoining room. \Vhen she Chandrnsekhara
told her that Hanjit Singh was running away Kalawati
Aiyar J .
denied that it was Ranjit Singh, and stated that some
dacoits had come and robbed her of her ornaments.
Her evidence was accepted by the, courts below, and
there is a ring of truth about it. If she was a false
witness, there was nothing to prevent her from saying
that she saw Ranjit Singh attacking Bikram Singh
with a sword.
But she tells us that she did not see
the commission of the murder, and saw only the back
of Rarijit Singh when he was hurrying down at a
distance of a yard or so from her bed. She could not
identify the weapon in his hand, except to the extent
of stating that he was holding something shining.
It is true that she did not mention the name of Ranjit
Singh at any time earlier than in the Oommitf1ing
Magistrate's court, but this was because Kalawati had
scolded her and as~ed her to keep quiet. The suggestion that her husband, Nathu, was probably responsible for the murder, as his hands were admittedly
bloodstained when people had gathered ·there, is unlikely. He had no motive whatever to kill his master.
It might well be that when he came up along with
the servants and the crowd had gathered, he
came into touch with the body in ascertaining
what had happened or for giving water to the
injured man in his last gasp, about which there is
some evidence.
Kalawati had given the police a
story of an attack by dacoits, and till the investigation advanced, it is only natural that suspicion should
have fastened itself on several people. Laik Ram, a
shopkeeper, who carries on his business opposite the
place of occurrence, who was examined as P. W. 23,
told the police that he suspected many sets of peorl1:1
564
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1953)
1958
-namely, Shibbi and Nathu, Kalawati, a Sikh serKalawoti
vant of the deceased, Balbir 8ingh, the brother of the
and Another deceased himself, and the driver, who was formerly a
v.
S11b-Iuspector, and two Sikhs who were seen in the
The State of· jungle at 8 p.m. the previous night.
Himachal
Apart from the confessions, there are definite
Prade~h.
. d
_
circumstances which m ica.te
beyond reasonable
Chandrasekhar• doubt the guilt of Ranjit Singh. He is a resident
Aiyar J,
of
Bashdera, but his sword and scabbard were
found
near
the place of
occurrence, and it
was he who recovered the sword from a bush.
His kacha (underwear) remained concealed under a
stone in a channel near the place of occurrence.
Kalawati herself stated in her confession that the
kachha seemed to belong to Ranjit Singh, as she knew
he had purchased the cloth, and it was sewn on
h~r
own sewing machine aud in her presence at Manimajra.
More important is the discovery of the ornaments
of Kalawati on 29th July, 1951, in the presence of
Ranjit Singh and with his assistance.
'rhey were
buried underneath the earth in a room of his house in
Ba'shdera. It was urged that as the room was an open
one with no doors and no roof, it was probable they
were planted there.
According to Kalawati's confession, she had left them at Manimajra, and she says
that Baldev Singh, the manager, had the keys, suggesting thereby that he might have handed over the
jewels to the police for implantation.
Ranjit tells us
that as he was being taken to Bishanpura in a jeep,
Baldev handed them to the Sub-Inspector, Prithiram.
We are not prepared to differ from the Judicial Commissioner on this point.
Baldev was not asked a
single question in cross-examination about his enmity
with Kala.wati and there was no suggestion why he
should have colluded with the police in the manner
alleged .. The Sub-Inspector was not asked either
about Ranjit Singh's allegation.
Much argument
was addressed to the effect that it was not at all likely
that Ranjit Singh would have buried the ornaments
il\ hjs oWI\ house 11tnd in an open room1 and tlia~ if h~
.
•
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
555
wanted to conceal traces of the crime, he would have
l953
concealed them elsewhere.
'I'he ornaments had to
Kahwati
be returned in all probability, and he might h0ave and Another
thought that their careful preservation was his duty.
v.
Had he concealed them in a locked room or box, it
The stat• of
would have been much more damaging to him if
Biin1chal
they were. discovered by the police who would
Pradesh.
inevitably search his house.
It was not till the
-
·
f th" 27th' th t }7 1
t'
d
f
·
Chandrasekh-ira
even mg o.
e
a
i.a awa i ma . e a con ess10n
Aiyar J •
to the police, and there was hardly any time for them to
take hold of the ornaments from Manimajra, proceea
to Basdhera, implant them in the house of Ranjit
Singh, return to Bishanpura, and take Ranjit to his
house on the 29th so that he could show the place of
concealment. \Ve are not prepared to differ from the
learned Judicial Commissioner, who rejected the
criticisms of the Sessions Judge about this recovery
and accepted the prosecution story as trua.
As regards Kalawati the case is suspicious, no
doubt.
1 t is possible that she aided and abetted
Ranjit Singh in the criminal deed.
But we think it
is possible also that though she wa> aware of the
intentions of Ranjit Singh expressed from time to time
for the sake of protecting her from ill-treatment and
cruelty at the hands of her husband, she might not
have believed that he was going to put his threat into
actual execution.
As pointed out already in more
than one place, each of the accused charges the other
with the active formulation of the scheme to get rid
of an inconvenient obstacle and a cruel brute. There
is one defect in Kalawati's confession which ,might be
noticed here.
A careful
~crutiny of it leads to the
conclusion that phe final hatching of the plot was on
the afternoon of'the 8th July, and·that the entrustment of the ornaments into Ranjit Singh's hands was
on the morning of the 9th. 'I'his is in apparent
conflict with the diary of Bikram Singh marked P. W.
38/3, where there is this entry under the date of 8th
July: ''Ranjit Singh gone to Simla for his personal
work to enquire about his application.
Then he will
proceed Manimajra." If this is correct, the story of
72
556
SUPREME COUR'l' REPORTS
[1953)
the plot on the 8th and the entrustment on the 9th
Ka!•wati
is somewhat damaged, unless it was possible for
and Another Ranjit Singh to go to Simla on the afternoon of. the
1953
v.
The State of
Himnchl'l-l
Pradesh.
8th' and return to Bishanpura on the morning of the
9th, on which aspect, however, there is no evidence
one way or the other.
We have to assume that the
8th of Jnly was the date of the secret t~lk between
Ohandrasekhan· K:tlawati and Ranjit Singh from the 'fact that Balbir
Aiya>· J.
Singh (P. W. 1) says that he left Bishanpura for
Manimajra with the children on the 7th of Jnly, and
she says that the arrangement was on the day after
the children left.
'rhere may be some mistake about
the dates.
Apart from this infirmative circmμstance, there is
yet another, which renders it unsafe to take Kalawati's
confession at its face value.
She was prepared to
make a confession on the 27th evening, and she was
actually taken to the Magistrate.
Not only was she
prepared, but she insisted on making it, and there
was no particular reason why the recording was postpo'.led to the next day.
She alleges that the SubInspector asked for time stating that her condition
was bad, and she should be given 12 hours to think
O\·er it. 'l'he confession contains minute details which
would not normally find a place in such a document.
For instance, she says:
"We had become so close that I can claim to have
seen all his clothes, because he used to keep his
boxes usually 'Yith me and his room was also next to
mine. He may not have seen all my clothes, but those
that I wore must have been seen by him.
Normally
)
he would have seen only the jewellery which I wore.
He had not known of my jewellery box."
The conversation between Kalawati and Ranjit
Singh in the presence of a maid-servant near the
well where she had gone to wash her clothes is rather
incredible. For these reasons, we hesitate to act upon
the confession of Kalawati and find her guilty of
aiding and abetting the offence of murder.
Bnt there can scarcely be any doubt that she mnst
have witnessed the murder 9f her bqsl;J:J,nd lying next
S.C.l\.
StJPREMm COURT REPORTS
557
to her on a charpai.
Sbibbi who was at a distance of
19.53
18 feet was roused by the sound of a sword attack.
l
Kalawati
Kala,wati must have woke up a so at least during the
and Anothsr
course of the assault if not at its commencement,
v.
several injuries having been in11icted in succession.
The Stats of
vVhen Shibbi woke up, Kalawati's bed was empty, and
Hiniachaz
she was found in a room nearby and not at the place
Pradech.
of occurrence.
She trotted out an elaborate story of Oh d-k'
d
·
h · h
t b
d
n
. f
an rase ,cara
acorty, w rc
can no
e accepte
as true.
P,ven 1
Aiyar J.
in terror she ran away from her bed and stood at a
distance, she is almost sure to have known who was
the offender, unless he had bis face muffled.
The
first version Rhe gave to the police head corntable
when he appeared on the st!ene immediately after the
occurrence is, we think, false, and we are of opinion
that she knew or believed it to be false.
The border
line between abetment of the offence and giving false
information to screen the offender is rather thin in
her case, but it is prudent to err on the safe side, and
hold her guilty only of an offence under section 201,
Indian Penal Code as the learned Sessions Judge
did.
It was urged for her by Mr. Mathur that as she
was acquitted of this offence by the Judicial Commissioner, and as there has been no appeal by the
Govermp.ent against the acqujttal, she cannot nowbe
convicted of the same by this Court. This argument
proceeds on. a fallacy. Section 201 is not restricted to
the case of a person who screens the actual offender;
it can be a pp lied even to a person guilty of the main
offence, though as a matter of practice a Court will
not convict a person both, of the main offence and
under section 201.
The Judicial
Commissioner
acquitted Kalawati of the offence under section 201
for which she was convicted by tlle Sessions Judge,
only because he thought that the main offence itself,
namely, murder, was brought home to her.
But if
we think for the reasons given above tba't it would
not be safe to convict her of the main offence, the
;:i,cquittal is no legal impediment to her conviction
under section 201. It was held by the Privy Council
558
SUPREME cobR'l' REPORTS
Li953j
1953
in Begu v. King-Emperor(') that in a charge of
murder under section 302 a conviction under section
.Kala.wati
and Anothor 201 without a further charge being made was warrantv.
ed • hy the provisions
of
section 237, Criminal
The State of Procedure Code. If Kalawati had been acquitted
Hiniachal
of an offence under section 201 independently of the
Pradesh.
charge of murder against her, it would have been a
Cha d;;;.khara different matter. But as her acquittal is so intimately
·
:iyar J.
related to the charge of the main offence, and as it
took place only for the reason that she was held guilty
of murder, there is no bar to the restoration of the
conviction under section 201.
The result is that Raujit Singh's Appeal No. 74 of
1952 is dismissed, but we 'substitute for the sentence
of death the sentence of transportation for life, having
regard to the time that has now elap>ed since the
occurrence and the probable motive of prevention of
cruelty to a helples!t woman.
Kalawati's Appeal
No. 73 of 1952 is allowed, and her conviction and
sentence under section 302 discharged, but we convict
her of an offence under section 201, Indian Penal
Code, and sentence her to three years' rigorous
imprisonment.
Appeal N.i. 73 allowed.
Appeal No. 74 dismissed.
Sentence reduced.
Agent for the appellant in Appeal No. 73:
B. R .. Anand.
Agent for the respondent: G. H. Rajadhyaksha.
(1) 119>5) 52 I. A. 11)1.
~·
·'