# PALVINDER KAUR v. 'I'HE STATE OF l'UNJAB

- **Citation:** [1953] 1 S.C.R. 94
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1951-10-03
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 1952
- **Bench:** Mehr Chand Mahajan, Chandrasekhara Aiyar, Bhagwati
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/palvinder-kaur-v-i-he-state-of-l-unjab-228
- **Pages:** 15

## Headnote

Criminal trial-Circumstantial evidence-Duty of cou,rts to
safeguard themselves against basing decision on suspicions-Co1ifes·
sion-Must be accepted or rejected as a whole-Self exculpatory
state·ment containing admission of incriminating facts-Ad'1nission
of incriminating portion as true rejectiug exculpatory portion as false
-Legalit·y-Indian Penal Gode, 1860, s. 201-Essential ingredients
of offence.
In cases depending on circumstantial evidence courts should
safeguard themselves against the danger of basing their conclusions on suspicions howsoever strong.
Rex v. Hodge (1838) 2 Lew. 227, and Nargnndkar v. Slate of
Madhya Praclesh [19521 S.C,R, 1091 referred to.
•
.....
r
-
. ,.
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
95
To establish a charge under s. 201, Iudia.n Penal Code, it is
1952
essential to prove that an offence has been committed (mere suspicion that it has been committed is not sufficient); that the accus2d Palvinder Kaur
knew or had reason to believe that such offence had been Mmmitv.
·
ted ; and that with the requisite knowledge and with the intent to
The State of
screen the offender from legal punishment the accused caused the
Punjab.
evidence thereof to disappear or gave false information respecting
such offence knowing or having reason to believe the same to be
false. Where the evidence showed that a person had died, that his
body was found in a trunk and was dis'COvered in a well and that
the accused took part,in the disposal of the body but there was no
evidence to show the cause of his death or the manner or circumstances in which it came about: Held, that the accused could not
be convicted for an offence under s. 201.
A statement that contains self-exculpatory matter cannot
amount to a confession, if the exculpatory matter is of some fact,
which if true would negative the offence alleged to be confessed.
A confession must either admit in terms the offence or at any rate
substantially all the facl(s that constitute the offeuce.
Narayanaswami v. Emperor (1939) 66 I.A. 66, referred to.
It is a well accepted rule regarding the use of confessions an<l
admissions that these must either be accepted as a whole or rejected as a whole and that the court is not competent to accept only
the inculpll.tory part while rejecting the exculpatory part as inherently incredible.
Emperor v. Bal!nmkand (1930) I.L.R. 52 All. 1011, followed.
Where the statement made by the accused contained an
admission that she had placed the dead body of her husband in a
trunk and had carried it in a jeep and thrown it into a well, but
with regard to the, cause of the death the statement made by her
was that her husband hp.d accidently ta.ken a poisonous substance
which was meant for washing photos erroneously thinking it to be
a medicine: Held, the statement read as a whole was exculpatory
in character and the whole statement was inadmissible in evidence
and the High Court acted erroneously in accepting the former part
of it and rejecting the latter part as false.
Judgment of the High Court of Punjab reversed.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE
JURISDICTION:
Criminal
Appeal No. 41 of 1952.
Appeal by Special Leave
from the Judgment and Order dated the 3rd October,
1951, of the Hi§h Court of Judicature for the State
of Punjab at Simla (Bhandari and Soni JJ.) in Criminal Appeal No. 86 of 1951, arising out of the
Judgment and Order dated the 31st January, 1951,
of the Court of the Sessions Judge, Ambala, in Case
So. 23 of 1950 aud Trial :N" o. 2 of 1 I);) l.
9o
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[19531
Jai Gopal Sethi (R. L. Kohli with him) for the
appellant.
·
1952
.z:alvi,,der Kaur
H. S. Gujral, for the respondent.
v.
Th• State of
Bhagat Singh Chawla, for the Caveator.
Punjab.
Mahajan J.
1952. October 22. 'rhe judgment of the Court was
de Ii vered by
MAHAJAN J.-Pa\vinder Kaur, was tried for offences
under sections 302 and 201, Indian Penal Code, in
connection. with the murder of her husband, Jaspal
Singh. She was convicted by the Ses.sions Judge
under section 302 and sentenced to tran

## Text

94
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1953)
'
1952
will be prevented from acting aμd pleading anywhere
,
.~K
by virtue of the provisions of article 220 of the
aswm•
umar C
•t
·
·r · th
f
t
t
·
Ghosh
ons\1 u t10n.
t 1 s,
ere ore, no necessary o give
and Another the "7ord "practise" the wider meaning contended for
v.
by the petitioner Aswini Knmar Ghosh.
We must
Arabinda Bose also remember that the general rnle relied npon may •
and Another. be excluded by the subject or context.
Das J.
For reasons stated above, whether we adopt one or
Oct. 22.
the other method of construction suggested above,
in my opinion, this petition cannot succeed and must
be dismissed.
·
.
Appeal allowed.
Agent for the respondents: P. K. Bose.
Agent for Intervener No. 1: P. K. Mukherjee.
Agent for Intervener No. 2 : Sukiimar Ghose.
Agent for Intervener No. 3: I. N. Slirojf, for
P. K.Bose.
Agent for Intervener ·No 4: Rajinder Narain.
PALVINDER KAUR
v.
'I'HE STATE OF l'UNJAB
(RUF SINGH-Caveator)
(MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR
and BHAGWATI JJ.]
Criminal trial-Circumstantial evidence-Duty of cou,rts to
safeguard themselves against basing decision on suspicions-Co1ifes·
sion-Must be accepted or rejected as a whole-Self exculpatory
state·ment containing admission of incriminating facts-Ad'1nission
of incriminating portion as true rejectiug exculpatory portion as false
-Legalit·y-Indian Penal Gode, 1860, s. 201-Essential ingredients
of offence.
In cases depending on circumstantial evidence courts should
safeguard themselves against the danger of basing their conclusions on suspicions howsoever strong.
Rex v. Hodge (1838) 2 Lew. 227, and Nargnndkar v. Slate of
Madhya Praclesh [19521 S.C,R, 1091 referred to.
•
.....
r
-
. ,.
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
95
To establish a charge under s. 201, Iudia.n Penal Code, it is
1952
essential to prove that an offence has been committed (mere suspicion that it has been committed is not sufficient); that the accus2d Palvinder Kaur
knew or had reason to believe that such offence had been Mmmitv.
·
ted ; and that with the requisite knowledge and with the intent to
The State of
screen the offender from legal punishment the accused caused the
Punjab.
evidence thereof to disappear or gave false information respecting
such offence knowing or having reason to believe the same to be
false. Where the evidence showed that a person had died, that his
body was found in a trunk and was dis'COvered in a well and that
the accused took part,in the disposal of the body but there was no
evidence to show the cause of his death or the manner or circumstances in which it came about: Held, that the accused could not
be convicted for an offence under s. 201.
A statement that contains self-exculpatory matter cannot
amount to a confession, if the exculpatory matter is of some fact,
which if true would negative the offence alleged to be confessed.
A confession must either admit in terms the offence or at any rate
substantially all the facl(s that constitute the offeuce.
Narayanaswami v. Emperor (1939) 66 I.A. 66, referred to.
It is a well accepted rule regarding the use of confessions an<l
admissions that these must either be accepted as a whole or rejected as a whole and that the court is not competent to accept only
the inculpll.tory part while rejecting the exculpatory part as inherently incredible.
Emperor v. Bal!nmkand (1930) I.L.R. 52 All. 1011, followed.
Where the statement made by the accused contained an
admission that she had placed the dead body of her husband in a
trunk and had carried it in a jeep and thrown it into a well, but
with regard to the, cause of the death the statement made by her
was that her husband hp.d accidently ta.ken a poisonous substance
which was meant for washing photos erroneously thinking it to be
a medicine: Held, the statement read as a whole was exculpatory
in character and the whole statement was inadmissible in evidence
and the High Court acted erroneously in accepting the former part
of it and rejecting the latter part as false.
Judgment of the High Court of Punjab reversed.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE
JURISDICTION:
Criminal
Appeal No. 41 of 1952.
Appeal by Special Leave
from the Judgment and Order dated the 3rd October,
1951, of the Hi§h Court of Judicature for the State
of Punjab at Simla (Bhandari and Soni JJ.) in Criminal Appeal No. 86 of 1951, arising out of the
Judgment and Order dated the 31st January, 1951,
of the Court of the Sessions Judge, Ambala, in Case
So. 23 of 1950 aud Trial :N" o. 2 of 1 I);) l.
9o
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[19531
Jai Gopal Sethi (R. L. Kohli with him) for the
appellant.
·
1952
.z:alvi,,der Kaur
H. S. Gujral, for the respondent.
v.
Th• State of
Bhagat Singh Chawla, for the Caveator.
Punjab.
Mahajan J.
1952. October 22. 'rhe judgment of the Court was
de Ii vered by
MAHAJAN J.-Pa\vinder Kaur, was tried for offences
under sections 302 and 201, Indian Penal Code, in
connection. with the murder of her husband, Jaspal
Singh. She was convicted by the Ses.sions Judge
under section 302 and sentenced to transportation for
life.
No verdict was recorded regarding the charge
under section 201, Indian Penal Code.
On appeal
to the High Court she was acquitted of the charge of
murder, but was convicted under section 201, Indian
Penal Code, and sentenced to seven yearn' rigorous
imprisonment.
Her appeal by special leave is now
before us.
J aspal Singh, deceased, was the son of the.Chief of
Bhareli (Punjab). He was married to Palvinder Kaur
a few years ago and they had two children. The
husband and wife were living together in.Bhareli
house, Ambala. It is said that J aspal's relations with
his father and grandfather, were not very cordial and
the two elders thought that Palvinder Kaur was responsible for this. It is also said that .Jaspal lived on
the allowance he got from his father and supplemented his income by selling milk and eggs and by
doing some odd jobs.
Mohinderpal Singh (a fugitive
from justice) who is related to the appellant and
was employed as a stornkeeper in Baldevnaga1· Camp,
Ambala, used occasionally to reside in Bhareli house.
It is suggested that he hacl started a liaison with
Palvinder.
The prosecution case is that Sardar Jaspal was
administered potassium ·cyanide poison by the appellant and Mohinderpal on the afternoon of the 6th
February, 1950. The dead body was then put into a
large trunk and kept in one of the rooms in the house
in Ambala city.
About ten days kt er, i.e., on the
. j
S.0.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
97
16th February, 1950, Mohipderpal during the absence
wo2
of the appellant, removed the trunk from the house P 1 . ;-
in a jeep when he came there with Amrik Singh and a vin v:r Kaur
Kartar Singh (P. \Vs.), two watermen of the BaldevThe state of
nagar Camp.
The trunk was then taken to Baldev- . Punjab.
nagar Camp and was kept in a store room there. Three
days later, on the 19th February, 1950, Mohinderpal
:t;Iaha.ian J.
accompanied by Palvinder and a domestic servant,
Trilok Chand tP. vV. 27), took the trunk a few miles
on the road leading to Rajpura, got on to a katcha
road and in the vicinity of village Chhat took the
jeep to a well 011 a mound a,ud threw the box into it.
The jeep was taken to a gurdwara where it was
washed.
After the disappearance of the deceased, his father
made enquiries from Mohinderpal regarding the
whereabouts of his missing son.
.Mohinderpal made
various false statements to him.
On the 8th March,
1950, the father advertised in the "Daily Tul:ilap" beg~
_.,
ging his son to return home as soon as possible as the
condition of his wife and children and parents had
become miserable owing to his absence.
On the 10th March, 1950, i.e., a month -and ten
ilays after the alleged murder and 19 days after the
trunk was thrown into the well, obnoxious smell was ·
corning out of the well, and the matter being reported
to the lambardars of village Chhat, the trunk was
taken ont.
The matter was reported to the police
and Sardar Banta Singh, Sub-Inspector of ,Police, on
the 11th March arrived at the scene and prepared the
inquest report and sent for the doctor.
The postmortem examination was performed on the spot the
next day.
No photograph of the body was taken and
it was allowed to be cremated.
After more than two
and a half months, on the 28th April, 1950, the first
information report was lodged against the appellant .
and Mohinderpal a,nd on the 26th June a challan was
presented in the court of the committing magistrate.
Mohinderpa I was not traceable and the case was
started. against the appellant alone.
98
SUPREMI<1 COURT REPORTS
[1953).
1952
There is no direct evidence to establish that the
, . -d K.
appellant or Mohinderpal or both of them adminisPa'"'" er
aur
d
t
.
. d
J
l
d
h
. d
v.
tere po assmm cyam e to aspa an
t e ev1 ence
The State of regar'iling the murder is purely circumstantial. The
, Punjab.
learned Sessions Judge took the view that the circumstantial evidence in the case was incompatible with
MahaJaii J.
the innocence of the accused, and held that the case
against the appellant was proved beyond any reasonable doubt.
The High Court on app·eal arrived at a
different conclusion. It held that though the body
found from the well was not capable of identification,
the clothes recovered from the trunk and found on the
body proved that it was the body of J aspal. It further
held that the cause of death could not be ascertained
from the medical evidence given in the case.
The
evidence on the question of the identity of the dead
body consisted of the statement of constable I.achhman
Singh, of the clothes and other articles recovered
from inside the trunk and of an alleged confession of
the accused.
As regards the firnt piece of evidence
the High Court expressed the following opinion: -
'"l1here is in our opinion considerable force in the
contention that not only are foot constable r~achhman
Singh and Assistant Sub-Inspector Banta Singh
testifying to the facts which are false to their know-
. ledge bid that the proseciztion are responsible for deliberately introdiwing a false witness and for a.~king th~ other
witnesses to su.pport the story narrated by Laohhman
Singh· that he· identified the. body to be that of J aspal
Singh on the 11th March and communicated the information to the father of the deceased on the following
day."
As regards the extra-judicial confessions alleged to
h:i.ve been made to Sardar Rup Singh and Sarda1·
Balwant Singh, father and grandfather of the deceased, they were held inadmissible and unreliable.
'The confession made by Palvinder to the magistrate
on the 15th April, 1950, was however used in evidence against her on the.following reasoning:-
"It is true that strictly speaking exculpatory statements in which the prisoner denies her guilt cannot
-
-
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
99
be regarded as confessions, but these statements are
1953
often used as circumstantial evidence of guilty con- P 1 . -d K
.
b
h
.
h
b f 1
d f b .
d "
a v•n "'"
aur
sc10u.sness y s owmg t em to e a se an
a nc.ate .
v.
It was also found that though Palvinder might have
The State 01
desired to continue her illicit intrigue with MohinderPunjab.
pal she may not have desired to sacrifice her wealth
Mahaja" J.
and position at the altar of love.
She may have had
a motive to kill her husband but a stronger motive
to preserve· her own position as the wife of a prospective chief of Bhareli and that iu th.is situation it
was by no means impossible that the murder was
committed by Mohinderpal alone without the consent
and knowledge of Palvinder, and that though a strong
suspicion attached to Palvinder, it was impossible to
state with confidence that poison was administered by
her.
Therefore it was not possible to convict her
under section 302, Indian Penal Code.
Concerning the charge under section 201, Indian
Penal Code, the High Court held that the most important piece of evidence in support of the charge was the
confession which Palvinder madG on the 15th April,
1950, and this confession, though retracted, was corroborated on this point by independent evidence and
established the charge.
The judgment of the High Court was impugned
before us on a large number of grounds. Inter alia,
it was contended that in examining Palvinder Kaur at
great length the High Court contravened the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that the
Full Bench decision of the High Court in Dhara Sing h's
oase(1) was wrong in law, that the alleged confession of
the appellant being an exculpatory statement, the
same was inadmissible in evidence and could not be used
as evidence against her, that it had been contradicted
in most material particulars by the prosecution evidence itself and was false and that in any case it could
not be used piecemeal; that the offences under sections 302/34 and 201, Indian Penal Code, being distinct
offences committed at two different times and bein~
•
100
SUPREME COURT REPOR'rS
[1953]
w52
separate transactions, the appellant having been conp l .-d K
victed of·the offence under section 802, Indian Penal
a v·in er
.aur
.
.
v.
Code, only by the Sess10ns Judge, the High Court had
The state of no jurisdiction when acquitting her of that offeJlCe to
Pun.jab.
convict her under section 201 of the same Code; that
the statements of Mohinderpal to various witnesses
''fohajan. .r. and his conduct were not relevant against the appellant ; .that Karamchand and Mst. I.achhmi were in
the naturn of accomplices and the High· Court erred
in relying on their testimony withont any corrobora·
tion; that the"High Court having disbelieved eight of
the witnesses of the prosecution and having held that
"they were falsely introduced into the case, the investigation being extremely belated and the story having
been developed at different stages, the High Court
should not have relied on the same; and lastly that
the pieces of circumstantial evidence proved against
the appellant were consistent with several innocent
explanations and the High Court therefore erred in
relying on them without excluding those possibilities.
'
The decision of the appeal, in our view, lies within
a very narrow compass and it is not necessary to pronounce on all the points that were argued before us.
In our judgment, there is no evidence to establish
•
affirmatively that the death of Jaspal was caused by
potassium cyanide and that being so, the charge under
section 201, Jndian Penal Code, must ~!so fail.
The
High Court in. reaching a contrary conclusion not
only acted on suspicions and conjectures but
on
inadmissible evidence.
'I'he circumstances in which J as pal died will for
ever remain· shrouded in mystery and on the material
placed on the record it is not possible to unravel
them. It may well be that he was murdered by
Mohinderpal without the knowledge or consent of
Palvinder and the incident took place at Baldevnagar
Camp and not at the house and that Mohinderpal
alone disposed of the dead body and that the conies:
sion of Palvinder is wholly false and the advertise-
)Ilent issued in "Milap" correctly refle(lted the facts
-
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
101
so far as she was concerned.
The evidence led by the
1952
Prosecution, however, is "Of such a character that no P 1 . -d K
.
b
l
d
.t
d
ffi
.
a vin er
aur.
rehance can e p ace on 1 an
no a rmat1ve .conv.
clusions can be drawn from it.
The remarks of the
The State of
Sessions Judge, that the consequences had definitely
Punjab.
revealed that justice could not always be procured by
wealth and other worldly resources and that the case
Mahajan J:
would perhaps go down in hi~ory .as one of the most
sensational cases because of the parties involved and
the gruesome waYin which the murder was committed,
disclose a frame of mind not necessarily judicial. It
was unnecessary to introduce sentimentalism in a
judicial decision.
The High Court was not able to
reach a positive conclusion that Palvinder was responsible for the iirnrder of her husband.
Whether J aspal committed suicide or died of poison
taken under a mistake or whether poison was administered to. him by the appellant or by Mohinderpal or
by both of them are questions the· answers to which
have been left very vague and indefinite by the circumstantial evidence in the case.
In view of the situation of the parties and t'he belated investigation of
the case and the sensation it created, it was absolutely
necessary for the courts below to safeguard themselves against the danger of basing their conclusions
on suspicions howsoever strong. It seems to us that
the trial court, and to a certain extent the High Court,
fell into the same error against which warning was
given by Baron Alderson in Reg. v. Hodge(1), where
he said as follows:-
"The mind was apt to take a pleasure in adapting
circumstances to one another, and even in straining
them a little, if need be, to force thein to form
parts of one connected whole; and the more ingenious
the mind of the individual, the more likely was it,
considering such matter,;, to overreach and mislead
itself, to supply some little link that is wanting, to
take for granted some fact consistent with its previous
theories and necessary to render them complete."
(I) (x838) 2 Lew. 227.
I'f
.
\
-
---
102
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
.[1953)
.. ws2
We had recently occasion to emphasize this point
P ; . -d K
in Nargundkar v. The State of Madhya Pradesh(').
·
ruv1n er
aur
,
v,
In order to establish the ·charge under section 201,
Tke State of- Indian Penal Code, it is essential to prove that an offPu>ijab,
ence hits been committed-mere suspicion that it has
· -
·
been ·committed is not sufficient,-that the. accused
.if!llvrjnn J. knew or had reason to believe that such offence had
been committed, and with the requisite knowledge :1nd
with the intent to screen the offender from legal punishment causes the evidence thereof to disappear or gives
false iuformal!ion respecting such offences knowing or·
/
having reason to believe the s:1me to be false. It was
essential in these circumstances for the prosecution to .
est:1blish affirmatively that the death of Jaspal was
caused by the administration of potassium cyanide by
some person (the appellant having been acquitted of
this charge) and that she had re;i.son to believe that it
was so caused and with .that knowledge she took part
in the concealment and disposal of the .dead body.
There is no evidence whatsoever on this point. . The
following facts, that Jaspal died, that his body was
found in a trunk and was discovered from a well and
.that the appellant took part in the disposal of the
body do not establish· the ca use of· his death or the
manner· and· circumstances in which it. came about.
As already stated, there is no direct evidence to prove
that potassium cyanide .WM administered. to him by
any person. The best evidence on this question would
have been that of the doctor who performed the postmortem examination. That evidence does not prove
that Jaspal died as a result of.administration of potassium cyanide. On the other hand, thii'doctor 'las of
the opinion that there were no positiv'e .. post~riiortein
signs which could suggest pois.oning. 'He, stated .that
potassium cyanide being corrosive· poison, would pro- ..
duce hypermia, ·softening· and ulceration·. of the
gastro-intestinal track and that in this cas·e he did not
notice 'imy such signs .•. He further .said· that potassium cyanide corrodes·. the lips and the inouth, and
none of these signs was on the body.· This evideri.c13
!1) [<95•) S.C.R. 'O\l'•
. . .. · .. • . .
'
l
S.C.R.
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS
103
therefore instead of proving that death was caused by
1952
administration of potassium cyanide, to the extent itP 1 . -
·
h t f
t
a vinder K(Lu1'
goes, negat1ves t a
ac .
·
v
The High Court placed reliance on the corrfession
The st:te of
of Palvinder made on the 15tb. April, 1950, to hold
Punjab.
this fact proved.
The confession is in
these
terms :-
Mahajan J.
"My husband Jaspal Singh was fond of hunting
as well as of photography. From hunting whatever
skins (khalls) he brought home he became fond of
colouring them.
He also began to do the work of .
washing of photos out of eagerness.
One day in
December, 1949, J asp al Singh said to my cousin (Tay's
son)
Mohinderp~l Singh to get him material for
washing photos. He(Mohinderpal Singh) said to Harnam Singh, who is head clerk in Baldevnagar. Camp,
to bring the same from the Cantt. Harnarn Singh went
to the Oantt. and on return said that the material
for washing photos could be had only by a responsible
Government official.
He told so to Mohinderpal
Singh, who said that Harnam Singh should take his
name and get the medicine.
'l'hereupon Harnam Singh
went
to the
Oaatt. and brought
the medicine.
I kept this
medicine.
As the
medicine was sticking to the paper I put it in
wa~er
in
a small bottle
and kept it· in the
almirah. In those days my husband was in Ambala
and I lived with him in the kothi in the city.
He
went for hunting for 2-3 days and there he developed abdominal trouble and began to purge. He sent
for medicine 3-4 days from Dr. Bohan Singh.
One
day I placed his medicine bottle in the almirah where
medicine for washing photos had been placed.
I
was sitting outside and Jaspal Singh enquired from
me where his medicine was. I told him that it was in
the almirah.
By mistake he took that medicine
which was meant for washing photos. At that time,
he fell down and my little son was standing by his
side. He said 'Mama, Papa had fallen'. I went
inside and saw that he was in agony and in short time
be expired.
Thereafter I went to Mohinderpal Sin$h
io4
SUPREME COURT . REPOR'rS
[1953]
1952
!Ind told him all that had happened.
He said that
Pl . -;;-- K
father of Jaspal Singh had arrived and that he should
a vin :r
aur be intimated.
But I did not tell him, because his
The st;ite of .connections were not good with his son and myself.
Pimjab.
Out of fear I placed his corpse in a box and Mohinderpal Singh helped me in doing so.
For 4-5 days
Mahajan J.
the box remained in mY kothi.
Thereafter I said to
Mohinderpal Singh that if he did not help me I would
die.
He got removed that box from my kothi with
the help of my servants and placing the same in his
jeep went to his store in Baldevnagar Camp and kept
'the same there. That box remained there for 8-10 ·
days.
Thereafter one day I went to the camp and
from there got placed the ti'unk in the jeep and going
with Mohinderpal Singh I threw the same in a well
near Chhat Banur.
I do not remember the date
when .faspal Singh took t.he medicine by mistake. It
was perhaps in January, 1"950."
The statement read as a whole is of au exculpatory
character. It does not suggest or prove the commission of any offence under the Indian Penal Code by
any one. It not only exculpates her from the com-
.mission of an offence but also exculpates Mohinderpal
It states that the death of J as pal was accidental.
'l'he statement does not amount to a confession and
is thus inadmissible in evidence. It was observed by
their Lordships of the Privy Council in Naraya?iaswami v. E1nperor(1) that the word "confession" as
used in the Evidence Act cannot be construed as
meaning a statement by an accused suggesting the
inference that he committed the crime. A confession
must either admit in terms the offence, or at any
rate substantially all the facts which constitute
the offence.
An admission of a gravely incriminating fact, even a conclusively incriminating fact, is
not of itself a confession.
A statement that contains
self-exculpatory matter cannot amount to a confession,· if the exculpatory statement is of some fact,
which if true, would negative the. offence alleged to
be confessed. In this view of the law the High Court
. (1) (1939) ~6 I.A. 66; A.LR. 1939 P.C. 47.
•
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTSc-· ··105
...
was in error. in treating ·the statement of Palvinder
1952 •
as the most important piece.of evidence in supportP 1 . -a K
.
f
h
h
d
.
. 201 I d"
1 a "'" er
aur
o
t e c arge nn er sect10n
,
n rnn Pena
v
Code. The ·learned Judges in one part of · their Th• s1:1. of
judgment observed that strictly, speaking exculpatory
Punjab.
statements in which the prisoner denies her guilt
· .. cannot be regarded as confessions, but went on to say
Mahajan J.
that such statements are often used as circumstantial
evidence of guilty consciousness by showing them
to be false . and fabricated. With great respect we
have not been able to .follow the meaning of these
observations and the learned counsel appearing at the
Bar for the prosecution was unable to explain what
these words exactly indicated. The statement. not .
being a confession and being of an exculpatory nature .
in which the guilt had been denied by the prisoner,
it could not be used as evidence in the case to ·prove .
her guilt.
·
,
. Not only was the High Court in error in treating
the alleged confession of Palvinder as evidence in the
case but it was further in error in accepting a part of
it after finding that the rest of it was false. It said
that the statement that the deceased took poison by
mistake should be ruled out of consideration for the -
simple reason. that . if the decea.sed had taken poison
by mistake the conduct of the parties would have been
completely ·different; and that she would have then .•
run to his side and raised a hue and cry and would•
have sent immediately for medical aid; that it was' • .·
incredible that if the deceased had taken poison by '
mistake, his wife would have stood idly by and allowed
him to die: . The court thus accepted the inculpatory
part of that statement and rejected. the exculpatory
part. In doing so it contravened the well accepted
rule regarding the use of confession and admission
that these must either be accepted as a whole or -
rejected a.s a whole and that the court is not competent to accept only the inculpatory part· while -·
rejecting the exculpatory part as inherently inc!edible.
Reference in tr.is connection may be made to-the
observations of the Full Bench of the Alla.ha.bad
106
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1953]
1952
High Court in Emperor v. Balmakund('), with which
P l . -;-K
observations we fully concur.
'!.'he confession there
avi~•
a~
.
( )
v.
comprised of two elements, a •an account of how the
The stat• of accused killed the women, and (b) 31n account of his
Punjab.
reasons for doing so~ the former element being inculpatory and the latter exculpatory and the question
Mahajan J. referred to the Full Bench was: Can the court, if it
is of opinion that the inculpatory ·part commends
belief and the exculpatory part is inherently incredible, act upon the former and refuse to act upon the
latter ? 'l'he answer to the reference was that where
t.here is no other evidence to show affirmatively that
any portion of the exculpatory element in the cortfession is false, the court must accept or reject the
confession as a whole and cannot accept only the
•
inculpatory element while rejecting the exculpatory·
element as inherently incredible.
'l'he alleged confession of Palvinder is wholly of an exculpatory
nature and does not admit the commission of any
crime whatso_ever. The suspicious circumstances from
which an inference of guilt would be drawn were cl!ntained in that part of the statement which concerned
the disposal of the dead body. '!'his part of the statement could not be used as evidence by holding that
the first part which was of an exculpat_ory character
was false when there was no evidence to prove that
it was so, and the only material on which \t could be
so held was the conduct mentioned in the latter part.
of the same statement and stated to be inconsistent
with the earlier part of the confession.
'l'he result therefore is that no use can be made of
the statement mad~ by Palvinder and contained in
the alleged confession and which the High Court
thought was the most important piece of evidence in
the case to prove that the death of J aspal was caused
by poisoning or as a result of an offence having been.
committed.
Once this confession is excluded altogether, there remains no evi_dence for holding tha.t
Jaspal died as a result' of the administration of potassium cyanide.
(J) (1930) l.L.R. 52 All. IO!l.
-
-
S.O.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
107
The circumstantial evidence referred to by the
1952
High Court which according to it tends to es~ablish Palvinder Ka"r
that Jaspal did not die a natural death is of the
v.
following nature: 'rhat Palvinder and Mohinderpal
The State of
had a motive to get rid of the deceased as she was
P"njab.
carrying on with Mohinderpal. The motive, even if
.
Mahajan J.
proved in the case, cannot prove the circumstances
under which J aspal died or the cause which resulted
in his death.
That Mohinderpal was proved to be in
possession of a quantity of potassium cyanide and was
in a position to administer it to the deceased is a circumstance of a neutral character.
Mere possession
of potassium cyanide by M ohinderpal without its
being traced in the body of J asp al cannot establish
that his death was caused by this deadly poison. In
any case, the circumstance is not of a character which
is wholly incompatible with the innocence of the
appellant. The other evidence referred to by the High
Court as corroborating the latter part of Palvinder's
alleged confession in the view of the case that we
ha:ve taken does not reg uire any discussion because if
the confession is inadmissible, no question of corroborating it arises.
Mr. Sethi argued that the statements contained in
the alleged confession are contradicted rather than
corroborated by the evidence led by the prosecution
and that the confession is proved to be untrue. It is
unnecessary to discU3s this matter in the view that
we ha~e taken of the case.
The result, therefore, is that we are constrained to
hold that there is no material, direct or indirect, for
the finding reached by the High Court that the death
of J aspal was caused by the administration of potassium cyanide. If we believe the defence version his
death was the result of an accident. If that version
is disbelieved, then there is no proof as to the cause
of his death.
The method and manner in which the
dead body of J asp al was dealt with and disposed of
1'1d.ille \lome suspicion but from these facts a positive
conclusion cannot be reached .that he died an unnatural death necessarily.
Oases are not unkri.owi:+
108
· SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1953)
'
· 1952
where death is accidental and the accused has acted
P 1 .-a- K
in a peculiar manner regarding the disposal of the
"·""' ;' aur dead body for reasons best known to himself.
One of
ThcSt~te of them ·might well be that he was afraid of a false case
Punjab.
being started against him. Life and liberty of persons
cannot be put in jeopardy on mere suspicions, howso·
Maha.ian •7· ever strong, and they can only be deprived of these
on the basis of definite proof.
In this case, as found
by the High Court, not only were the Sub-Inspector
of police and police constables and other witnesses
guilty of telling deliberate lies but the prosecution
was blameworthy in introducing witnesse> in the case
to support their lies and that being so, we feel that it
woulxl be unsafe to convict the appellant on the
material that is left after eliminating the perjured,
false and inadmissible evidence.
1952
Oct. 29.
For the reasons given above we allow this appeal,
set aside the conviction of the appellant under section '201, Indian Penal Code, and acquit her of that
charge also.
Appeal allowed ..
Agent for the appellant: Sardar Bahadur.
Agent for the respondent: P. A. Mehta.
Agent for the caveator: Harbans Singh.
RAJA KAMAKSHYA
NARAYAN SINGH BAHADUR
v.
CHOHAN RAM AND ANOTHER
[MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR
and BHAGWATI JJ.]
Tran.<fer of Property Act (IV of 1882), ss. 66, 65-A-Mortgage
-Mortgagor in possession-Power to lease-Law before amendment
Act of 1929-Permanent lease by mortgagor-Validity.
Under the hiw as it stood prior to the enactment of s. 65-A
of the Transfer of Property Act, by Act XX of 1929, the question
whether the mortgagor in possession had power to lease the mort-
~·~ed property has got to be determined with reference to the