# RATAN GOND v. THE STATE 01'' BIHAR

- **Citation:** [1959] 1 S.C.R. 1336
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1958-03-04
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 76 of 1958
- **Bench:** Jafer Imam, S. K. Das, J. L. Kapur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ratan-gond-v-the-state-01-bihar-1555
- **Pages:** 14

## Headnote

Jo:videncc-Statemwt of dt'ad person 11ot made in j"dicial proceeding or to puso" at4lhorised nor relating to the cause of hts deathAdmis~ibility-Co,.fession-Perso" in authority- Cir.:umstantial
t:vidence-Use in corroboration of confession-/11dian Ei·ide1Ju Act,
(/ of 1872), ss. 24, 32 and 33.
The appellant was charged with the murder of a girl
Haisakhi. On information gi,·cn by Aghani, younger sister of
the deceased, the headless body of the decease<! was recovered. The "appellant absconded but was found ;n another
village and was brought back by
the village voluTlteer
force.
On interrogation by the
~lakhia, Sarpanch and a
panch of the Gram Panchayat the appellant mad< an extraju<licial confessi'on.
A blood-stained cutting ."'c~pon was rep
covered fronra room of the appellant. At 111s mslance some
sttands of hair \Vere recovered from a place at• a short •distance
•
.
~
,.
~···
,· .
• •
' •
S.C.R.
SUPR!j:ME COURT REPORTS
1337
from the plac"> "'11.ere the dead ·body had been recovered, which
were stained with human blood i-nd appeared to be scalp hair of
a human female. The appef!ant jVaS convicted and sentenced to
Ratan Gond
death and the High Court upheld the conviction and sentence.
v.
.
The Courts took into consideration the statements made by Th• Stats 0! Bthor
·Aghani to her mother and io other persons that the deceased
wa~ last seen in the company of the appellant. Aghani, however,
died before her statement could be recorded in a judicial proceeding. It was contended by the appellant that the statements
of Aghani were inadmissible, that the extra-judicial confession
was not relevant and that the circumstantial evidence was not
sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant.
Held, that the statements of Aghani were not admissible
either under s. 32 or s .. 33 of the Evidence Act. Section 33 had
no application as her statement was not made in any judicial
proceeding or before any person authorised by law to record the
same. The statements did not relate to the cause of her death
•or to any circumstances relating to her death but related to the
death of her sister and did not fall under cl. r of s. 32 which
was the only clause which could have any bearing on the
question.
Held, further, that though having regard to the Bihar
Panchayat Raj Act, the Mukhia, Sarpanch and panch of the
• Gram Panch~yat to whom the extra-judicial confession was made
were persons in authority within the meaning of s. 24 Evidence
Act, no. threat, promise or inducement for making the confession
was proved. The facts that the appellant was brought back to
'the Village by the village volunteer force and that it took two
or three hours before he made the confession do not indicate
that the confession was not voluntary. Jhere was nothing to
show that the confession contained any untrue or inaccurate
statement. The circumstantial evidence may not be sufficient
by itself to prove the guilt of the appellant, but it afforded
sufficient corroboration to the confession and the corroboration was of such a nature as to connect the appellant with the
murder.•
CR.IMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION:
·Criminal
Appeal No. 76 of 1958.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and
order dated March 4, 1958, of the Patna High Court
in Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 1958 and Death Reference
No.'6 of 1958 arising out of the judgment and order
dated January 18, 1958, of the Court of the 1st Additional Judicial Commissioner of; Chotanagpur at
Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. XC of 1957: .
•
B. R~ L. Iyengar, for the appellant.
•
•
•
•
• •
• '
1338
SUPREME COURT REJ'ORTS
[1959]
r95a
R. H. Dhebar, for the respondent.
•
RaJa11 Gond
1958. Sept.ember 19.
Theo Judgment of the Court
v.
was delivered by
· '
'Thi Stat1 of BiJia,.
S. K. DAS J.-This is an appeal by special leave.
5. K. Das J.
•
•
The appellant is Ra.tan Gond, aged about 28 ytl!l.rs.
Tried on a. charge under s. 302, Indian Pena.I Gode, he
was convicted a.nd sentenced to death by the learned
Additional Judicial Commissioner of R

## Text

•
• ,
1336
StTPREME COURT REPORTS
[1959]
r958
This wrapper had blood-stains. They (l;itre too sma.11
B . .
.
in quantity to enable a. S@rologist to determine their
tpon /Jtloa"
• •
b
• •
k Ll
h
h
h bl d
SarAar &
Another Or11pn, Ut It IS rema.r a .. e t at W ere\·er t 0
00 •
v.
sta.ms were found on the wrapper a.n a.tternpt had
The State of
been ma.de t-0 burn out those ma.rks.
Unfortunately,
Wtst Bencal
for the a.ppella.nt, his attempt to burn out th•3 bl<iodImam ].
Stplrmbtf' r9
•
•
stains on the wrapper was not entirely successful.
This was, in our opinion, an incriminating circumstance against this appellant.
Tho circumstantial
evidence taken as a whole leaves no room for 1~ reasonable doubt in our minds about the guilt of th is appellant.
In our opinion, the High Court rightly found the
appellants guilty under s. 302/34 of the lndiim Penal
Code. It could not be said that the sentence of death.
for a. murder of the kind proved in this case was unduly severe. The appeals a.re accordingly dismisser!.
Appeals dismi8sed .
•
•
RATAN GOND
v.
THE STATE 01'' BIHAR
(JAFER IMAM, S. K. DAS and J. L. KAPUR JJ.)
Jo:videncc-Statemwt of dt'ad person 11ot made in j"dicial proceeding or to puso" at4lhorised nor relating to the cause of hts deathAdmis~ibility-Co,.fession-Perso" in authority- Cir.:umstantial
t:vidence-Use in corroboration of confession-/11dian Ei·ide1Ju Act,
(/ of 1872), ss. 24, 32 and 33.
The appellant was charged with the murder of a girl
Haisakhi. On information gi,·cn by Aghani, younger sister of
the deceased, the headless body of the decease<! was recovered. The "appellant absconded but was found ;n another
village and was brought back by
the village voluTlteer
force.
On interrogation by the
~lakhia, Sarpanch and a
panch of the Gram Panchayat the appellant mad< an extraju<licial confessi'on.
A blood-stained cutting ."'c~pon was rep
covered fronra room of the appellant. At 111s mslance some
sttands of hair \Vere recovered from a place at• a short •distance
•
.
~
,.
~···
,· .
• •
' •
S.C.R.
SUPR!j:ME COURT REPORTS
1337
from the plac"> "'11.ere the dead ·body had been recovered, which
were stained with human blood i-nd appeared to be scalp hair of
a human female. The appef!ant jVaS convicted and sentenced to
Ratan Gond
death and the High Court upheld the conviction and sentence.
v.
.
The Courts took into consideration the statements made by Th• Stats 0! Bthor
·Aghani to her mother and io other persons that the deceased
wa~ last seen in the company of the appellant. Aghani, however,
died before her statement could be recorded in a judicial proceeding. It was contended by the appellant that the statements
of Aghani were inadmissible, that the extra-judicial confession
was not relevant and that the circumstantial evidence was not
sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant.
Held, that the statements of Aghani were not admissible
either under s. 32 or s .. 33 of the Evidence Act. Section 33 had
no application as her statement was not made in any judicial
proceeding or before any person authorised by law to record the
same. The statements did not relate to the cause of her death
•or to any circumstances relating to her death but related to the
death of her sister and did not fall under cl. r of s. 32 which
was the only clause which could have any bearing on the
question.
Held, further, that though having regard to the Bihar
Panchayat Raj Act, the Mukhia, Sarpanch and panch of the
• Gram Panch~yat to whom the extra-judicial confession was made
were persons in authority within the meaning of s. 24 Evidence
Act, no. threat, promise or inducement for making the confession
was proved. The facts that the appellant was brought back to
'the Village by the village volunteer force and that it took two
or three hours before he made the confession do not indicate
that the confession was not voluntary. Jhere was nothing to
show that the confession contained any untrue or inaccurate
statement. The circumstantial evidence may not be sufficient
by itself to prove the guilt of the appellant, but it afforded
sufficient corroboration to the confession and the corroboration was of such a nature as to connect the appellant with the
murder.•
CR.IMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION:
·Criminal
Appeal No. 76 of 1958.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and
order dated March 4, 1958, of the Patna High Court
in Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 1958 and Death Reference
No.'6 of 1958 arising out of the judgment and order
dated January 18, 1958, of the Court of the 1st Additional Judicial Commissioner of; Chotanagpur at
Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. XC of 1957: .
•
B. R~ L. Iyengar, for the appellant.
•
•
•
•
• •
• '
1338
SUPREME COURT REJ'ORTS
[1959]
r95a
R. H. Dhebar, for the respondent.
•
RaJa11 Gond
1958. Sept.ember 19.
Theo Judgment of the Court
v.
was delivered by
· '
'Thi Stat1 of BiJia,.
S. K. DAS J.-This is an appeal by special leave.
5. K. Das J.
•
•
The appellant is Ra.tan Gond, aged about 28 ytl!l.rs.
Tried on a. charge under s. 302, Indian Pena.I Gode, he
was convicted a.nd sentenced to death by the learned
Additional Judicial Commissioner of Ranchi in the
State of Bihar. The learned Additional Judicial Commissioner submitted the record to the High Court of
Patna. for confirmation of the sentence, as he was
required to do under the provisions of s. 374 of tho
Code of Criminal Procedure. Rata.n Gohd also preferred an appeal to tho High Court. The appeal and the,
reference under s. 374, Criminal Procedure Code, were
heard together by a Di vision Bench of the said High
Court and it accepted the reference and dismissed the
appeal thereby confirming the sentence of deatn passed
upon the appellant. On May 19, 1958, the appellant
prayed for and obtained special leave ana then filed •
the present appeal in pursuance of the leave granted
to him.
·
The facts lie within a narrow compass.
The appel-·
lirnt was a resident of village Urte, Tola Banmunda,
police station Kolebera in the district of Rimchi. Ono
Mst. Jatri (P. W. 2), who was a widow, also lived in
the same village and same Tola.
She had two young
daughters, one named Baisakhi and the other named
Aghani.
Baisakhi was about nine years old and
Aghani about five years old. The subject of the 'present
appeal is the murder of the girl Baisakhi. On a Tuesday, May 7, 1957, tho two sisters, Baisakhi and
A"hani, had gone out to pluck wild berries iu a hilly
jn~1gle situated at a short distance from their Yillage,
the distance being estimated varionsly by various
witnesses from 300 vards to a little more th:m a mile .
w c may give here. some idea of the location or the
village and t.he hilly area. near it.
Accordiag to the
evidence of fu.Jp Rt1.m (P. W. 1), uncle of the two girls,
Tola Banmunda. consists of a.bout 40 hou,ies.
At a
snort distance to the north, there is a hil'ly tn.ct"known
•
. · .
, .
..
• •
' .
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS'
1339
as Amtis Chua ell!. Close to the hill, there are jungles
'958
on two sides and there is a,so a spring or well in
Ratan Gond
between the two strips of jungle's. On Tuesday, Mst.
v.
Jatri (P. W. 2) had herself gone to pluck berries The Stato of Bihar
known as Keond berries at another place. When she
left the house in the morning, her two daughters'were
5• K. Das J.
in the house. Mst. Jatri came back at about noon
and found Aghani alone in the house. She enquired
from Aghani about the elder sister Baisakhi and
Aghani made certain statements to her mother as well
as to other persons later that day and the next day.
Aghani, however, died within a few months of the
occurrence, before her statements could be recorded in
a judicial proceeding. The courts below have referred
to,.and the High Court has relied on, the statements of
Aghani. One of the points urged on behalf of the
appellant is that the statements of Aghani were not
admissible in evidence either under s. 32 or s. 33 of
the Evidence Act {l of 1872). As we are of the view
th.,at this coniention is correct, we are omitting all
·reference to the statements of Aghani in stating the
facts of the case. When Baisakhi did not return to
the house" even in the evening ,Mst. Jatri went in the
dir'ection of Amtis Chua hill, but could not find
Baisakhi. Next morning, information was sent to Rup
Ram (P. W. 1) about the fact that 'Bai'sakhi was
missing, Rup Ram having gone to village Targa for
making tiles on the preceding Monday. Rup Ram
came back to Banmunda on Wednesday, May 8, 1957.
In the m~antime certain other villagers including
Dalpat Sai(P. W. 4),mukhia of the village, and Sohar
(P. W. 5>, chaukidar of the village, had been informed
that Baisakhi was missing. Aghani took Rup Ram and
these villagers to the foot of Amtis Chua hill and
showed them the spring or well.
This village party
found the headless body of Baisakhi
a~ a short
distanc~ from the aforesaid spring. The body was
identified by Mst. Jatr\ and others as the dead body
of Baisakhi by reason of the white saree of yellow
border which Baisakhi was wearing, fi~e red" churi&"
round the.right hand, two red "churis" round the •
•
•
•
•
• •
. ,
1340
'SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1959]
left hand, one " bera " round the left l~nd, one brass
ring on the left finger afld -certain beads of a "ma.la. "
Ralan Gon4
v.
which Ba.isakhi had piit on.
\Vhen the headless dead
The s1a1. of Dihar body was discovered and identified,
Dalp~.t Sa.i left
some of his companions to guard the dead body and
s. K. Dos J.
went'to the house of tho appellant, but did not fiii1d him
there. Ho then sent Rup Ram and the ch:rnkidar to
the police station which was at a distance of 43 miles.
He also sent some voluntoors of the Gram l'a.ncha.yat
to look for the appellant. On Thursday, MILy 9, 1957,
at about 10 a.m., Rup Ram and the chaukida.r appeared at the police station of Kolebera and Rup Ham
gave an information, which was recorded by the
Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. This information
referred to the statements of Aghani and to the otber
facts which had been discovered by that time. On the
same Thursday, the appellant was found in the house
of his sister's husband in another village called
Ka.rmapani. The appellant was caught hold of by
the village volunteers and brought b11ock to
villa~e
Banmunda. on Thursday. At about 1 or 2 p. m. on •
that day, he was questioned by Dalpat Sai (P,W.4)
mukhia of the Gram Pa.nchayat, Krishna· Chandra.
Singh (P. W. 7), Sarpanch of tho Gram Panchayat,
and Pra.duma.n Singh (P. W. 13), one of the panches
of the Panchityat, and it is stated that the appellant
made i.n extra-judicial confession to these persons to
the effect that he had killed the child :Baisakhi for
greed of money, as a contract-Or who was building a
bridge on the Lurki river had offered H.s. 80 for a
human head. The appellant was detai,1ed by the
aforesaid village authorities till the As3ista,nt SubInspector of Police arrived at tho villagE• on Friday,
May 10, 1957.
The Assistant Sub-Inspector arrived
at about 3 a.m. He was taken to the place where the
•
headless ,dead body of Ba.isakhi lay. Tho Assistant
Sub-Inspector made an inquest on the dead body and
seized the articles found there inch1ding 29 beads of
tho "mala" which Baisakhi 'was wearing and which
lay scattered 'llear the place. The A3sistant Sub-
• Inspect-Or ·of Police arrested the appcll<.nt, who was
already in custody of the mukhia. The house of the
.
.
•
...
" .
••
•
•
' .
S.C.R.
SUPREM:Jll COURT REPORTS·
1341
appellant was. then searched and a sharp cutting
z958
weapon called " balua" Wa.B found in the north facing
R•••n GoHa
room of the house, between a wall and the roof. This
v.
"balua " had certain blood-stains on it, but the stains The Slat• of Bihar
having disintegrated, the origin of the blood could not
be det1irmined. It is stated that on being questioned
s. K. Dtu J.
where the head of the girl Baisakhi was, the appellant took the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police and
some of the villagers to a place at a short distance of
100 yards or so from where the dead body was. At
that place were discovered some strands of bloodstained hair which were seized by the Assistant Sub.
Inspector of Police. The strands of hair looked like
the hair on the head of a female person and the
CJ::i.emical Examiner later reported that the strands of
hair were st,ained with human blood and "appeared
to be scalp hair of human (female) origin morphologically". After further investigation by two different
Sub-Inspectors of Police, the appellant was sent up
for trial.
Th~re was an enquiry by a Magistrate of
• tlie first class, who, at the conclusion of the enquiry,
committed the appellant for trial by the Court of
Session. •
'i'he defence of the a ppellartt was that he had been
falsely implicated. He denied that he killed Baisakhi
near the jungle at Amtis Chua hill. He.further denied
that he had made any extra-judicial confession to
Dalp11t Sai, Krishna Chandra Singh and Praduman
Singh. He deuied that any blood-stained weapon was
found in his house by the Assistant Sub-Inspector of
Police anci he also denied that he was absent from his
village or was found in the house of his sister's
husband in village Karmapani.
The learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, as
also the High Court, rightly stated that the case
against the appellant rested on (a) circumstantial
· evidence and (b) the extra-judicial confession stated
to havli been made by the appellant. The courts
below concurrently heltl that the extra-judicial confession was voluntary and it did not a,ppea.r to the.m
to have been_ caused by any inducement,· threat or
promise ha. ving reference to the charge made against •
•
•
•
• •
. '
1342
.SUPREME COURT ~EPORTS
[1959)
r958
the appellant so as to attract the pr<Jvisions of s. 24
Rot ... Go•d
of ;he .Evidhenco A
1
ct. ,dT~y further held that the
v.
con1ess10n, t ough ater emed by the appellant, was
Th• s1.,, of Biha• sufficiently corroborated by the circumstantial evidence
and the confession and the circumstantial evidence
s. 1<. Dos J.
read , together led to only one reasonable inforence,
namely, that the appellant had killed t.he child
Baisakhi in the hope of getting some monoy.
•
•
It is not disputed that in an appeal filed by special
leave under Art. 136 of the Constitution it is not
normally open to the appellant to raise questions of
fact or to ask for interference by us with concurrent
findings of fact, unless the findings aro vitiated by
errors of law or the conclusions reached by t.he courts
below are so patently opposed to well-established
principles as to amount to a miscarriage of justi~e
Mr. Iyengar for the appellant has urged before us
three main points. :Firstly, he has submitted that the
extra-judicial confession said to have been made by
the appellant is not admissible in eviden~e. Secondly,
he has contended that even if admissible, there is 1fo
guarantee of its truth. Thirdly, he has submitted
that even with regard to circumstantial evidence, the
courts below have relied tm inadmissible evidence, with
particular reference to tho statements of Aghani, to
establish oqe of tho circumstances, namely, that the
appellant was last seen with Baisakhi oefore her
murder. His argument is that the other cireumstances
established against the appellant, namely, tho recovery
of the blood-stained "balua ", of the blood-stained
hair and the absence of the appellant from the village
on. Wednesday, do not carry the case against the
appellant far enough so as to complete the chain and
make them inconsistent with any hypothesis other
than the guilt of tho appellant. He haE. submitted
that in considering the circumstantial evidence in this
case the ·courts below have departed from the wellestablished principle that the circumstances afflrmativoly proved against an accu~ed person must be of
such a chli.racter as to be consistent only with his
g~ilt and inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis
• of his innocence.
•
'
•
. "
'
,/ .
..
•••
• •
S.C.R.
SUPRE},t:E COURT REPORTS
1343
Before we $lx.'amine the aforesaid submissions, it is
1958
necessary to state that the fi11ding of the courts below
Ratan Gond
that Baisakhi was murdered s~me time between May 7
v.
and May 8, 1957, and that the headless dead body which Th• state of Bihar
was discovered on May 8, 1957, was correctly identified
-
as the dead body of the girl Baisakhi has noi been s. K. Das J.
challenged before us.
The post-mortem examination
on the dead body was held on May 11, 1957, and the
ante-mortem injuries which the doctor found were
(1) complete severance of the head from the neck,
(2) one incised wound on the left shoulder and (3) an
incised wound on the left upper arm. The doctor's
evidence makes it quite clear that the unfortunate girl
was brutally done to death. The identification of
the headless dead body also rests on a very sure
foundation .. We have already referred to the clothing,
ring, beads, etc., from which the identity of the dead
body was
established. The murder of the girl
Bu,isakhi having been clearly established, the courts
below rightly applied their mind to a consideration of
the principa1 question . in the case, namely, if the
appellant was responsible for that murder.
This 'brings us to a consideration of the submissions
made on behalf of the appellant. We may say at the
very outset that we agree with learned counsel for the
appellant that the statements of Aghani,. who unfortunately died within a few months of the occurrence
before her statements could be recorded in a judicial
proceeding, were not admissible in evidence either
under s. 32 or s. 33 of the Evidence Act. Section 33 is
clearly out of the way because Aghani made no statements in a judicial proceeding or before any pocson
authorised by law to take her evidence. The only
relevant clause of s. 32 which may be said to have
any bearing is cl. (1) which relates to statements made
by a person as to the cause of his death or as to any
of the circumstances of the transaction w h"ich resulted
•
in hi~ death. In the case before us, the statements
made by Aghani do"not relate to the cause of her
death or to any of the circumstances relating tu her
death; on the contrary, the statements ·relate to the
death o:!'her sis1!er.
We are, therefore, of the opinion
•
•
•
• •
• •
1344
8UPREME COURT REPORTS
[1959]
1958
that the statements do not come withifl ;. 32(1) of the
Evidence Act and, indeed>, Mr. Dhohar appearing on
Ralar1 Con.I
v.
behalf of the State, has oonceded thats. 32(1} does not
Ti.. si.1e of Bihar apply to t.he statements of Aghani.
Excluding tho stateipents of Aghani, what then is
s. K. Das J.
the evidence against the appellant? firstly, wo have
the extra-judicial confession.
Then, we
h:~ve the
following circumstances which the courts below have
held to have been clearly established against the
appellant, namely, (a) recovery of the blood-stained
" balm~ " from a room of the appellant, (b) recovery of
the blood-stained strands of hair from a placc pointed
out by the appellant and (c) disappearance of the
appellant from the village immediately after the murder and his arrest in village Karmapani in circum0
stances mentioned by Maheshwar Sai (P. W. 6). Lastly,
there is another ad verse circumstance which arises out;
of the total denial by the appellant of the rec·Jvery of
the blood-stained " balua " and of his arrest in villa.go
Karmapani.
As to the extra-judicial eonJ"ession, two
questions arise: is it voluntary, and, if so, is it true?"
The a.ppclla.nt denied at a. later stage that; he had
made a confession, but it is not necessary f,o consider in this ca.so tho abstract question as to ·.vhether,
as against its maker, a conviction can be based on a
confession w b.ica is found to be voluntary and true. It
is enough to stale that usually and as a matter of
caution, courts require some material corroboration to
such a confessional statement, corroboration which
connects the accused person wit.h the crime in 3uestion,
arid the real question which falls for decision in tho
present case is if the circumstances proved against the
appellant afford sufficient corroboration to tl:.e confessional statement of the appellant, in case we hold that
the confessional statement is voluntary and true.
Let us first see if the confession was voluntary.
•
Section 24 of the Evidence Act states:
"A confession made by an accused person is
irrelevant in a criminal proceeding, if the making of
the. confession apipcars to the Court to have been
caused by any inducement, threat or promise having
reference to the charge against the"accused person,
•
•
.
·,
,, .
-..
-
• •
• •
S.O.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTfS
1345
proceeding fr'ilni a person in authority and sufficient,
·z9sB
in the opinion of the Oou£t, 1lo give the accused person
Ratan Gond
grounds which would appeftr to him reasonable for
v.
supposing that by making it he would gain any The Stal• of Bihar
advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in
reference to the proceedings against him".
•
s. K. Das J.
Mr. Iyengar has referred us to the evidence of the
three witnesses, Dalpat Sai (P.W. 4), Krishna Chandra
Singh (P. W. 7), and Praduman Singh (P. W. 13),
Mukhia, Sarpanch and Panch respectively of the
Gram Panchayat. We agree with Mr. Iyengar that
having regard to the provisions of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act (Bihar VIII of 1948) the aforesaid three
persons can be said to be persons in authority within
Johe meaning of s. 24. The question, however, is-are
there any circumstances which tend to show '.that the
making of the confession appears to have been caused
by any inducement, threat or promise, having reference to the charge against the appellant and proceedjng from any one of the aforesaid three persons and
sufficient in the opinion of the court to give the appellant grounds which would appear to him to be
reasonable for supposing th~t by making it he would
gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal
nature in reference to the proceedings against him.
The courts below have categorically 1mswered this
question ill' the negative .. We have examined the evidence of the three witnesses mentioned above. That
evidence shows that the appellant was brought to the
house of Dalpat Sai (P. W. 4) at about 10 a. m. on
Thursday (May 9, 1957).
He was questioned for some
time;. Dalpat Sai (P.W. 4) said that he was questi6ned
for about two hours. The evidence of Dalpat Sai
makes it clear, however, that it was not a process of continuous questioning for two hours. Ratan
was given some food and then,
when he was
questioned, he kept quiet for some time and then
•
said that he had kille\l the girl because the contractor
who was building the bridge on river Lurki had offered
to pay a sum of Rs. 80 for a huma.n hood. Having
examin~d the evidence of the three witnesses who
prove the extra:judioial confession, we do not come to
.
.
.
. . .
• •
• •
1346
5UPREME COURT REPORTS
[1959]
'958
a conclusion different from the one arr~ved at by the
l/aton Go>1d
courts below. Mr. IyengAr rderred us to the observa.
v.
tio11s made by Cave J. (Its he then was) in The Queen
Tio• s101e of Bihor v. Thompson('). That was a case in which a prisoner
was tried for embezzling the money of a comp1rny. It
5· K. Dos f · was proved at the trial that, being taxed with the
crime by the Chairman of the company, the prisoner
said that he had taken the money. The Chairman
stated that at the time of the confession, no threat or
promise was made, but he said to the prisoner's brother,
" It will be the right thing for your brother tu make a
statement " and the court drew the inference f,hat the
prisoner, when he made the confession, knew ·chat the
Chairman had spoken these words tu his brother. In
these circumstance$, the learned Judge said: "I
prefer to put my judgment on the ground that it is the
duty of the prosecution to prove, in rase of doubt, that
the prisoner's statement was free and voluntary, and
that they did not discharge themselves of this obliga·
tion ". He further added that there \~re always
reasons to suspect those confessions which were·
supposed to be the offspring of penitence and remorse,
and which nevertheless were repudiated by the prisoner
at the trial. It is true that in the case under our con'.
sideration the appellant denied to have ma.de the
confession wliieh he had made earlier; but we find no
such circumstances as Wl're present in Tl!11mpson's
case('), such as the statement of the Chairm<~n of the
company to the brother of the prisoner. It is true that
the appellant was brought back from village .Karmapani by members of the village volunteer force. He
was•ta.ken to the vil11tgo authorities to whom he.made
a confession. The evidence does not even remotely
suggest that, any threat, promise or inducen:.ent was
made. The only circumstance relied on by Mr. Iyengar
is that it took about two tu three hours from ;he tinrn
•
when the appellant was brought to the howie
~f the
mukhia. up to the time when he made his confessional
statement. :\Ir. Iyengar has relied Oil In re Kataru
Chiuna l'apiah ('}, where a Superintendent of Police
~uestioned tlie !iCCused person for fom; hours ~t night
(1) (1893) 2 Q. B. 12, 18:
(•) A.l.R. 1940 Mad. J36 .
•
•
....
•
. ..
..
'c ......
....
:
•
•
e
I
• •
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORT8
1347
and again foi 'two hours in the morning. It was
z958
pointed out that this was Mflagrant violation of the
1
t
1 ' th · t
t'
·
d t
l'
ffi
Ratan Gond
re evan ru e m
e ms rue 1000 ISsue
o po we o cers.
v.
All that we need say is that there was no such ques- The state of Bihar
tioning in the present case. Another decision to which
Mr. lyengar has invited our attention is H11,shmat
s. 1c. Das J.
Khan v. The Grown (1).
We do not think that that
decision is of any assistance to Mr. Iyengar. It was
held therein that a mere possibility of there having
been some inducement is not sufficient to attract s. 24
of the Evidence Act; but only when it appears to the
court" that the confession has been made as a result of
some inducement held out by a person in authority
that it becomes irrelevant. That was a case in which
t}le accused person, when questioned, was told that it
would be better for him if he told the truth ; it was
held that this amounted to an inducement within the
meaning of s. 24 of the Indian Evidence Act.
As to the trnth of the confession, nothing has been
brought to opr notice which would show that -the confessional statement contained any untrue or inaccurate
statement. It is true that the prosecution has given no
evidence to show that the contractor who was building
the bridge over river Lurk'i, or for that matter, any
contractor, had offered a sum of Rs. 80 for a human
head. In the very nature of things, i1; is not expected
that any contractor, even if he had made such an
offer, will admit having done so, and we do not think
that the prosecution can be asked to give evidence in
support of any such offer. We recognise that in
ordinary 'and normal circumstances nobody asks for a
human head for building a bridge ; nor is it uaual
normally for a person to accept such an offer, even if
it is made.
We must not forget, however, that we are
dealing in this case with aboriginal people who are
still steeped in superstition. It is worthy of note that
Maheshwar Sai (P. vV. 6) said that when the appellant
•
was taken in custody in village Karmapani, he did not
even enquire why he was arrested; on the contrary, he
offered Rs. 20 and a he-goat to the witness and
(1) (I934J I.L.R. r5 Lah. 856.
IJl
•
. .
•
•
•
• •
• •
1348
SUPREME COURT R~PORTS
[1959]
1 958
implored the latter to save him.
S11ch a statement
was again of an incrilllin11otory nature, and if the
Ra1,u1 Gond
v.
evidence of !\1aheshwar. Sai is correct, the statement
n, s1.1e of Uiha• was absolutely voluntary and was not the result, of any
-
questioning at all.
For these reasons, we do not think
s. K. Das J.
that ihe reference to an offer of Rs. 80 for i. hJJman
head in the confessional statement of the appellant
necessarily destroys
it.~ veracity.
There can be no doubt that the recovery of the
blood-stained" balua" (even though the origin of the
blood could not he determined owing to di:iintegra.
tion) and of the blood-stained strands of female h1tir at
the place pointed out by the appellant, a.re circum.
stances clearly proved against the appellant. These
circumstances may not be sufficient by themselves t-0
prove that the appellant was the murderer, but there
is no doubt that they lend assurance to the confes.
sional statement of the appellant, assurance of a kind
which connects t.he appellant with the crimn in question. This is a case in which the confession and the
circumstances have to be read together. 'There is th~
additional circumstance that soon after the murder
the appellant disappeared from his village 1\nd when
arrested in another villa~, his conduct was weh as kl
show that he was suffering from a guilty mind. On
the top of all this, there is the total denial by the appellant that any blood-stained "balua." was recovered
from his house or that he disappeared from the village
after the murder. It is unfortunate that the leiu·ned
Additional Judicial Commissioner did not ask the
appellant to explain the recovery of the blootl-stained
strands of female hair. That was an important circumRtance against the appellant and when the learned
Additional Judicial Commissioner examined the appellant under the provisions of s. 342 of tho Code of
Criminal Procedure he should have asked the a.ppel-
•
!ant to eieplain this circumstance.
We take this
opportunity of inviting the attention of the lt!arned
Additional ,Judicial Commission'tlr to this very serious
om1ss10n.
Another omission on the part of the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner is hi:i failure to
'comply with the provisions of s. 2817 of th'I': Code of
•
•
·-
..
..
•
•
•
,. .
•
•
..
• •
• •
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS'
1349
Criminal Procedure. The examination of the accused
'958
recorded by or before the ()orhmitting Magistrate does
Ratan Gond
not appear to have been tendered by the prosecutor
v.
in the present case ; at least we do not find any such The Stat• of Bihar
statement in the printed paper-book. We are satisfied,
how~er, that no prejudice has been caused, The
5 · I<. Das J.
Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police who gave evidence
of the recovery of blood-stained hair from a place
pointed out by the appellant was not even cross-examined on the point. The defence of the appellant
was a total denial and even if the recovery of the
blood-stained strands of female hair was put to the
appellant, he would undoubtedly have denied such
recovery as having been made at his pointing out the
pl.ace.
To sum up: we see no reasons to differ from the
conclusion arrived at by the courts below that the
confessional statement made by the appellant was
voluntary and admissible ; there are no reasons for
thinking th11,t it was not true. The circumstances
clearly proved against the appellant, even excluding
the circumstance which rested on the statements of
Aghani; afford sufficient corroboration to the confession of the appellant, thougli. denied at a later stage,
and the corroboration is of such a nature as to connect
the appellant with the murder of the· child Baisakhi.
The only reasonable inference which can be drawn
from the confession read with the circumstantial evidence is that the appellant killed the child Baisakhi
between ,May 7 and 8, 1957, in the hope of getting
some money.
Whether that hope was realised or not
is mm::e than we can tell. The head was never- recovered, but there can be no doubt that the dead
body was correctly identified to be the dead body of
the child Baisakhi.
As to the sentence, in view of the circumstances in
w hici. the child Baisakhi was killed, we do not think
that we shall be justil}ed in interfering with it in the
present case. For these reasons, we hold that· the
appeal is without merit and must be odismissed.
•
Appeal di~missed.
•
•
•
•