# STATE OF U.P v. BOOTA SINGH & OTHERS

- **Citation:** [1979] 1 S.C.R. 298
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1978-08-22
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 1972
- **Bench:** S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, P. N. Shinghal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-u-p-v-boota-singh-others-7580
- **Pages:** 37

## Headnote

Appeal against acquittal-/11terfer,:011ce-Scope of-High Court misreedi11g
evidence, rc1·e1sing ;udg1nent of Sessians Court-ln1porta11t conclusions arril•eri.
at by Sessions Court not displaced-High Court overlooking important circu111stances which fully prore the case.
C
Code of Critnifl(J.l Procedure 1898-Sec. 288-Confession of <tccu~·ed-Use
J)
E
of-Corro~oration by other independent evidence-Necessity of-Satisfactiou
and support in extrinsic e~'idence-Use of.
Identification Parade-Necessity of keeping accused baparda
explained-·~
El'idence of identification-When of weak character.
Three of the four accused persons were related to one another and the fourth
was ai friend.
One of them entered into a deal for the purchase of' )and but
found it difficult to finance the transa..:tion.
The prosecution alleged that all
ef them entered into a conspiracy to obtain money by means fair and foul 11nd
in pursuance of that they hit upon a plan to hire a taxi, take possession of it,
de away with the driver and utilise the sale proceeds for payment of the purchase money.· By givin$ a false reason thev hired a taxi in Dehra Dun, drove
it by a forest road ood after killing the driver they changed the nutnber phttc
and reached Bombay.
When they tried to sell the taxi in Bombay a discre--
pancy was noticed in the chassis number whereupon respondent No. t made
good his escape. Eventually respondent no. 1 was caught.
He made a confessional statement before a magistrate detailing various parts played by each
of the accused.
The Session Judge convicted all the respondents under ss. 302
read with s. 34 IPC and also under s. 120B.
All the acc;used were convicted
of various other offences.
On appeal the High Court reversed the judgment of the Sessions Judge and
acquitted all the respondents on the ground· that (i) since the confession Clf
respondent No. 1 was not voluntary no reliance could be placed on it; (ii) tile
evidence of identification is a1 very weak type of evidence and should be closely
scrutinised before reliance could be placed on it; and (iii) the statements of
P. Ws. 5 and 7 before the trial court were inconsistent with their statements
G
made before the committing magistrate.
H
After special leave to appeal to this Court was granted to the State three
respondents surrendered.. while one remained "'bsoonding.
One of the three
later died.
HELD : (1) The High Court committed errors of law and fact on most
vitaY points. It refused to draw interences from proved facts and has taid down
legally erroneous principles on such vital and crucial ellidence
as
that
or
identification which .is a valuable piece of e~idence. On the question of identifi·
cation it has laid down wrong law on the basis of which it failed to consMer
•
•
!J.P. STATE V. BOOTA SINGH
299
that evidence.
Regarding the confession of the respondent it has not made a
correct apprcach which is to take the
confession and then to
find out how
much of it is corroborated by other independent evidence. The confcssio,n wa-;
discarded on irrelevant grounds based on pure speculation. Normally ·tbis
Court does not interfere with an order of acquittal passed by the lligh Cout t
but in this case the High Court has, on the one hand misread the evidence· and
completely oYcrlooked son1e of the in1portant circumstances which proved the
prosecution case and on the other while setting: aside the
judgrnent of
fhe
Session Juclge l1as failed to displace the important reasons given and circum·
stances relied on by the Sessions Judge. There are substantial and compelling
reruions for setting aside the order of acquittal passed in favour of respondent
No. I. [333 0-H, 334 A-DJ
(2) (a) The High Court was
not justified in
rejecting the confession or
doubting its veracity on the supposed belief that respondent No. 1 was in police
cust0dy from the time he was produced before the magistrate to the time· when
the statement was recorded.
Before recording the confessional statement the
n1agistrate put a number

## Text

_Characters 0–39,987 of 104,204. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39987 for what follows._

A
B
298
STATE OF U.P.
v.
BOOTA SINGH & OTHERS
August 22, 1978
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND P. N. SHINGHAL., .lJ.J
Appeal against acquittal-/11terfer,:011ce-Scope of-High Court misreedi11g
evidence, rc1·e1sing ;udg1nent of Sessians Court-ln1porta11t conclusions arril•eri.
at by Sessions Court not displaced-High Court overlooking important circu111stances which fully prore the case.
C
Code of Critnifl(J.l Procedure 1898-Sec. 288-Confession of <tccu~·ed-Use
J)
E
of-Corro~oration by other independent evidence-Necessity of-Satisfactiou
and support in extrinsic e~'idence-Use of.
Identification Parade-Necessity of keeping accused baparda
explained-·~
El'idence of identification-When of weak character.
Three of the four accused persons were related to one another and the fourth
was ai friend.
One of them entered into a deal for the purchase of' )and but
found it difficult to finance the transa..:tion.
The prosecution alleged that all
ef them entered into a conspiracy to obtain money by means fair and foul 11nd
in pursuance of that they hit upon a plan to hire a taxi, take possession of it,
de away with the driver and utilise the sale proceeds for payment of the purchase money.· By givin$ a false reason thev hired a taxi in Dehra Dun, drove
it by a forest road ood after killing the driver they changed the nutnber phttc
and reached Bombay.
When they tried to sell the taxi in Bombay a discre--
pancy was noticed in the chassis number whereupon respondent No. t made
good his escape. Eventually respondent no. 1 was caught.
He made a confessional statement before a magistrate detailing various parts played by each
of the accused.
The Session Judge convicted all the respondents under ss. 302
read with s. 34 IPC and also under s. 120B.
All the acc;used were convicted
of various other offences.
On appeal the High Court reversed the judgment of the Sessions Judge and
acquitted all the respondents on the ground· that (i) since the confession Clf
respondent No. 1 was not voluntary no reliance could be placed on it; (ii) tile
evidence of identification is a1 very weak type of evidence and should be closely
scrutinised before reliance could be placed on it; and (iii) the statements of
P. Ws. 5 and 7 before the trial court were inconsistent with their statements
G
made before the committing magistrate.
H
After special leave to appeal to this Court was granted to the State three
respondents surrendered.. while one remained "'bsoonding.
One of the three
later died.
HELD : (1) The High Court committed errors of law and fact on most
vitaY points. It refused to draw interences from proved facts and has taid down
legally erroneous principles on such vital and crucial ellidence
as
that
or
identification which .is a valuable piece of e~idence. On the question of identifi·
cation it has laid down wrong law on the basis of which it failed to consMer
•
•
!J.P. STATE V. BOOTA SINGH
299
that evidence.
Regarding the confession of the respondent it has not made a
correct apprcach which is to take the
confession and then to
find out how
much of it is corroborated by other independent evidence. The confcssio,n wa-;
discarded on irrelevant grounds based on pure speculation. Normally ·tbis
Court does not interfere with an order of acquittal passed by the lligh Cout t
but in this case the High Court has, on the one hand misread the evidence· and
completely oYcrlooked son1e of the in1portant circumstances which proved the
prosecution case and on the other while setting: aside the
judgrnent of
fhe
Session Juclge l1as failed to displace the important reasons given and circum·
stances relied on by the Sessions Judge. There are substantial and compelling
reruions for setting aside the order of acquittal passed in favour of respondent
No. I. [333 0-H, 334 A-DJ
(2) (a) The High Court was
not justified in
rejecting the confession or
doubting its veracity on the supposed belief that respondent No. 1 was in police
cust0dy from the time he was produced before the magistrate to the time· when
the statement was recorded.
Before recording the confessional statement the
n1agistrate put a number of questions to the accused to satisfy himself !hat the
confession \\'as being made voluntarily and without any coercion or undue
influeucc.
The respondent stated that he was making the confession to speak
the truth.
The magistrate took care to see that there was no poli.::e officer
present in the court when the confession was recorded.
The magistrate, after
warning the respondent that he was not bound to make the statemrnt, gave him
more than three hours' time for reflection.
The High Court's conjCcture that
the respondent must have been sent to police custody after being produced
before the magistrate is contrary to the evidence of the magistrate. [305 H, 306
A-DJ
(b) As the c·onfession of the accused was a retracted one it could be acted
upon only if it is substantially corroborated by independent circumstances.
It
is not necessary that a retracted confession should be corroborated in each
material particular, it is sufficient that there is a general corroboration of the
important incidents mentioned in the confession. [308 E]
In the instant case the circumstances proved by the prosecution not only
amounted to a complete corroboration of the confession but provided additional
circumstantial evidence against the respondt:~1t which are of a conclusi\'e nature.
A
B
c
D
E
[308 Fl
F
(c) The High Court has made a wrong approach to the whole case by not
taking the confessional statement first and then finding out whether there are
other circun1stances corroborating the various parts of the st<lltement made ie
the confession.
This may be due to the fact that the High Court found that
the confession was not voluntary and, therefore, shouJd be excluded from ccn-
•ideration. [305 E-FJ
(d) Jn the c·onfessional statement the respondent narrated the motive for
G
the incident leading to the murder of the deceased and this has been clearly
corroborated by the evide.nce of the vendor of the land.
The finding of the
High Court on the question of motive is against the weight of ~vidence on
record.
The trial court rightly pointed out that the prosecution had proved
the motive for the offence by clear evidence. [309 H-310 BJ
(e) The facts mentiooed in the receipt of the taxi-stand fuliy corroborate
the confmicnal statement of the respondent.
The High Court rejected this
H
important document mainly on the ground tha.t it was not mentioned in the
report filed with the police by the taxi-stand owner. If he did not mention
3-526 SCI/78
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
300
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1979] ] S.C.R.
in this report about the receipt as having been given by the respondent, that hy
itself would not throw suspicion on the authenticity of the receipt.
Moreover,
the report was not really the report of murder containing a detailed narratim1
of all facts.
The· witnesses who identified the accused were independent witnesses and ·were not kno\\1Il to him nor did they bear any animus against him.
[310 F-G, 311 A-B, 311 G-H]
,(f) Although there is no direct corroboration of the actual assault on the
·deceased the circumstantial evidence admitted in the· confession and corroborated by other evidence is a clear pointer to the fact that the deceased bad
accompanied the respondent from the place they hired the taxi to the place of
murder.
The respendents were last seen with the deceased before the murder.
Taking the circumstances before and after the death of the deceased the murder
could not be explained by a1.iy other reasonable hypOthesis than the guilt of the
respondent. [324 B-C]
(g) There is enough evidence to show that the
respondent
deliberately
changed the number plate of the c~·r to conceal its identity and this was done
after the deceased had been put to death.
This fully corroborates his state1nent n1ade in his ·.:onfession.
This important document which demonstrates
the incriminating conduct of the respondent, apart from corroborating his statement in the confessional statement. has been completely overlookc<l by the
High Court. [325 CJ
(h) The High Court has taken an artificiaJ and incorrect vi~w in holding
that the confession was completely disproved by the medical eviJcnce.
The
statement of respondent No. 1 regarding the death of the deceased was the only
manner in which he was murdered. The Sessions Judge has
righ~ly explained
that since only two shots were fired it may be that no shot hit the bones bul
remaio,,1ed in the flesh and no trace ...:ould be found because the flesh had peete(i
off.
Secondly the postmortem report revealed that the head was ~;evereJ from
the body and this could have been only possible if the injury wa<; i:i.flictcd by
a gandasa.
Here too since the flesh had peeled off no trace of 1h~ injury
could be found. The skeleton had heen identified by good and cogent evidenc..e.
This finding of the Sessicns Judge h2d not been displaced by the High Court.
[330 E-H, 331 A-BJ
(i) The dead bcxly had been found at the- instance of one of the 'accused
and this evidence is clearly admissible· under s. 27 of the Evidence Act.
This
has been proved bv independent witnesses.
This ·.:learly established the identity
of the corpus delecti. [331 E, GJ
(3) The I-Jigh Court was wrong in laying down a universal rule of application that the evidence of identification is a weak type of evidence.
Where a
'vitness correctly identifies the accused at a test identification paraJe held by a
magistrate after observing all the essential formalities and taking thl! necessa1 Y
precautions and also identifies the accused in court, the evidence of identification
can be believed unless the evidence of the witness suffers from some other
infirmity.
The evidence of identification becomes strong if the witnc'is has an
opportunity of seeing the accused not for a few minutes but for some length <'f
time in broad daylight. [317 C, 318 C-DJ
In the present case the respondent's confession was p1ovcd by the evidence
H
of witnesses '\Vho saw him at the taxi stiind for quite some tin1e.
These witnesses were in a position to notice the features of the respondent as closely
as possible. Their evidence fully co1Tobora.tes the confessional statement of the
respondent. [318 E-F]
.,,#.
J-
....;.
"
• "'·
!J.P. STATE V. BOOTA SINGH
301
Budh Sen & A,,r. v. Stale of U.P. Alli 1970 SC 1321 explained.
Rama11a1ha11 v. State of Tamil Nadu, [1978] 3 S.C.R. 694, followed,
State of Rajastlian v. Ravitha, AIR 1962 Raj. 78 FB approved.
Dhokal Singh & A11r. v. The State, lLR (1953) 3 Raj. 762 disapproved.
(4) It is v:ell-established that where a person makes a statement before the
trial oourt -which is inconsistent with his statement made before the -co1nmittJng
magistrate, it is unsafe to place implicit reliance on his evidence.
Before a
judge decides to accept the evidence brought in under ·s. 288 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure as true and reli2.ble he has to satisfy himself that this is
rerilly so.
"fhis satisfaction in most cases can wme in only if th~re is such
support in extrinsic evidence as to give a reasonable indication that not only
what is said about the occurrence in general but also what is said against the
particular accused sought to be implicated in the crime is true. But \Vhere even
without any extrinsic evidence the judge is satisfied that the evidence is true
and can be safely relied upon, the Judge will be failing in his duty in not
doing so. [321 A-El
In the instant case the evidence of P .W. 5 and P.W. 7 fully ':iUpported the
prosecution case that the accused were seen in a hotel.
P.W. 5 catcgoricllllY
stated that whaf he had stated before the C"ommitting court was true and bas
thus certified that what he stated in the trtial court was not the correct version.
ln his confession statement respondent No. I had stated that he, along with the
other accused. bad taken food in a hotel.
Thus there are cogent reason and
extrinsic circumstan<:es to lend support to the inference that the statements
given by these two witnesses before the committirig magistrate were in fact true
and corre<.·-t and the Sessicns Judge therefore waG right in re'!ying on those ~tate
ments.
On the o'her hand V·:hile rejecting their statements the High Court made
no effort
t(~ find out whether the prior statements made by them before the
·con1mitting court \Vas in fact tfue having regard to the facts and cin::utn'itances
of the case. The High Court was clearly in error in rejecting the evidence (,f
these two witnesses. [321 F-H, 322 C-E]
Shranappa Mutyappal Halke v. State of Ma/iaraslztra, [1964] 4
SCR
589
followed.
Ilarprasad & Ors. v. State of M.P. [1971] 3 SCC 455 applied.
(5) Acco1<ling to the confessional statement of respondent No. 1, respondent
No. 2 was not present in the forest at the time of murder. Nor was there any
evidence to show that he was with the respondent No. 1 later. There is some
force in the contenti~ that since at the time When the respondent \Vas identiJied
;\t the parade he had shaved off his beard and. that it would be difficult for the
witnesses io identify such a person. The possibility of mistake in identification
cannot be excluded.
E vcn the trial court has not accepted the evidence of
identification against him.
Jn all probability respondent No.
2
\Vas
a
coconspirator but it is unsafe to convict him '\\'hen he had been acquitted by the
High Court. [332 E-G]
A
ll
c
D
E
F
G
H
A.
302
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1979] 1 S.C.R.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 32 of
1972.
Appeal by
Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
29-9-1970 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal
No.
I
1511 /69.
B
D. P. Uni)'al and 0. P. Ra'11a for the Appellant.
c
D
E
F
G
H
A. N. Mu/la, Yogeswar Pd., S. K. Baggll and Mrs. S. Bagga for
~
the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
FAZAL Au, J.-This appeal by special leave is directed against
the order of the Allahabad High Court dated 29th September, 1970
by which
th~ High Court acquitted the respondents of the charges
framed against them by the Sessions Judge, Dehra Dun.
The Sessions Judge, Debra Dun by his order dated 16th July, 1969
convicted the re'spondents Boo ta Singh, Asa Singh, T rilok Singh and
Raghubir Singh under section 302 read with section 34 I.P.C. and also ·
under section 120-B I.P.C. Boota Singh, Trilok Singh and Asa Singh
were sentenced to death under section 302 read with section 34 and
section 120-B I.P.C. while Raghubir Singh was sentenced to imprisonment for life for the offence under section 302 read with section 34
and section 120-B I.P.C. The four respondents mentioned above were
also convicted under section 364 read with 'section 34 and section
120-B I.P.C. and section 394 read with section 34 and section 120-B
I.P.C. and each of them were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for
seven years under each count.
Boota Singh was further convicted of
the offence under section 419, I.P.C. and section 471 read with section
465 I.P.C. and section 471 read with section 466 I.P.C. and sentenced
to rigorous impri"sonment for two years, one year and four years respectively.
As three of the respondents, viz., Boota Singh,
Trilok
Singh and Asa Singh were sentenced to death, the Sessions Judge made
a reference to the High Court of Allahabad for confirmation of the
sentence of death. The respondents who have been convicted by the
Sessions Judge also filed appeals against their conviction's and sentences.
The appeal was heard by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High
Court which reversed the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and
acquitted all the respondents of the charges framed against them.
Thereafter, the State of U.P. preferred an appeal to this Court and
after special leave was granted by this Court the appeal has been
placed before us for hearing. At the time when the special leave was
granted, the Court issued non-bailable warrants against the four respondents in pursuance of which Boota Singh, Trilok Singh- and
Raghublr Singh surrendered
but Asa Singh remained
absconding.
(
}
U.P. STATE v. BOOTA SINGH (Fazal A/i, J.)
,303
During the pendency of the appeal the respondent Trilok Singh died
and it is, therefore, manifest that the appeal so far a·s this respondent
is concerned has abated.
Before we took up the appeal for hearing
we segregated the appeal of Asa Singh as he was absconding and
directed that the appeal against other respondents will be heard but
the appeal of Asa Singh will be kept pending.
Briefly the prosecution case may be summarised a·s follows :
~es
pondent Asa Singh and his brother Bal Singh had entered into an
agreement wi~h Ram Lal P.W. 16 and his father Kaka Ram for purchasing 68 bighas of land at the rate of Rs. 225 per bigha and an earnest
money of Rs. 3200 /- had been paid by Asa Singh and Bal Singh at
the time of the agreement and the balance of the amount was agreed
to be paid on the 25th December, 1963. The respondent Trilok Singh
had accompanied Asa Singh and the latter went to Ram Lal for negotiating the aforesaid purchase. The prosecution alleged that Asa Singh
and Boota Singh respondents were first cousins and were residents of
Chhidarwala. Boota Singh was also related to Trilok Singh inasmuch
as Trilok Singh's sister is wedded to the cousin of Boota Singh. After
the agreement, Asa Singh appears to have found some difficulties in
arranging for the money to be paid to the vendee P.W. 16 Ram Lal
and under the terms of the agreement if the money was not paid by
the due date the entire amount of earnest money of Rs. 3200 /- was
liable to be forfeited.
In such a situation the four respondents entered
into a conspiracy to obtain money by means fair or foul. They accordingly hit upon a plan to obtain a taxi on hire and after taking possession
of it to do away with the driver and sell the taxi at some other place
and utilise the con'sideration of the sale for payment to Ram Lal
towards the balance of the purchase money. In execution of this common plan Asa Singh remained at Doiwala while Boota Singh, Trilok
Singh and Raghubir Singh went .to Debra Dun and contacted Jnder
Singh P.W. 2 at Puni,ab Taxi Service, Dehra Dun.
Trilok Singh and
Raghubir Singh remained standing at the petrol pump a few paces away
from the office of the Punjab Taxi Service. Boota Singh .respondent
went in and approached Inder Singh P.W. 2 and introduced himself
as K. Sharm& of the Indian Army and gave out that he was on a round
for recruiting girls for the military and for this purpose he needed
the taxi on hire. The bargain was finally struck and Inder Singh P.W.2
agreed to provide Boota Singh with his taxi at the rate of Rs. 30 per
day. Boot.a Singh thereafter executed a document Ex. Ka-4 in proof
of the receipt of the car and paid Rs. 50/- as advance.
Lal Singh,
the deceased son of Inder Singh was the driver of the taxi and in fact
the virtual owner of the taxi.
The taxi given to Boota Singh bore
number UPS-6679. Inde.r Singh directed Lal Singh to take the taxi
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
304
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1979] ] S.C.R.
with Boota Singh and his companions.
Raghubir Singh and Trilok
Singh boarded ~he taxi when it reached the petrol pump. From Debra
Dun the taxi came to Doiwala where the party of Boota Singh was
joined by Asa Singh.
Thereafter all the members of the party took
their meals at the hotel of Khem Singh P.W. 5 and Boota Singh had
purchased a cake of soap from the shop of Jaidev Singh P.W. 7. Thus
all the four respondents were last seen together at Doiwala by P.W.s 5
and 7.
From there the respondents proceeded to Chhidarwala by
forest road and after crossing some forest barriers ultimately reached
Chiddarwala where it was decided to murder Lal Singh and take complete possession of the taxi. In pursuance of this conspiracy Lal Singh
was taken to the forest and killed by the respondents.
According to
the prosecution, as disclosed in the confession of respondent Boota
Singh Ex. Ka-81, Trilok Singh first fired two shots at the deceased and
then Asa Singh dealt a gandasa blow on the neck of the deceased.
After having accomplished thi's nefarious feat the respondents took
the precaution of removing the number plate of the car and substituted
a new plate bearing number UPM-3236. Thereafter, the respondents
Boota Singh and Raghubir Singh went to Ambala where they tried to
get the car with the new number insured, and finally landed at Bombay
and negotiated for the sale of the car through a broker and in this
connection contacted P.W. 62 Raja Ram Narain Rane who offered to
buy the car at Rs. 16,000 out of which a sum of Rs. 500 was to be
given to Raja Ram Narain Rane P.W. 62.
This happened on 16th
Deoembcr, 1963. At the time of negotiations with Raja Ram Narain
Rane, Boota Singh gave out his name as J.P. Singh and represented
that he was son of S.P., Bareilly. It appears however that some discrepency in the chassis number and the number of the engine was found
out which raised a serious suspicion regarding the genuineness of the
car and the matter was reported to the C.I.D. by P.W. 62. On the 18th
February 1963 respondent Boota Singh along with Anand Singh P.W. 9
went to the office of the R.T.O. at Bombay and contacted P.W. 35
Rati Lal Chhotu Bhai Desai who was a Motor Vehicles Inspector and
who was shown various papers by Boota Singh. Desai then saw the
car and discovered some t"mpering with the chassis number.
The
papers were, therefore, placed before the Police Officer and
Boota
Singh sensing some trouble made good his escape.
Meanwhile as Lal Singh did not return for quite a number of days,
his brother Harcharan Singh got worried and filed a missing report
before the Police Station Dalanwala, district
Dehra Dun on 31st
December, 1963 wherein he expressed his apprehension that the person
who had hired the taxi may have killed Lal Singh and driven away the
, ......
.•
'y-
-
U.P. STATE v. BOOTA SINGH (Fazal Ali, J.)
305
car. This report was treated by the Police as F.I.R. and investigation
was started in the course of which the blanket of deceased Lal Singh
was .recovered from the forest and the re·spondent Boota Singh soon
after his arrest made the confession Ex. Ka-81 before a Magistrate
making a clean breast of the whole affair. Subsequently, the respondents
were identified by some of the witnesses at T.I. parades held at Nainital
and Debra Dun. After the usual investigation, the Police 'submitted a
charge against all the four respondents on the basis of which they were
committed to the Court of Sessions and convicted and sentenced as
indicated ab9ve.
The central evidence against the respondents consists of the conA
B
fessional statement made by Boota Singh on 16th March, 1964 before
C
Mr. M. L. Sharma, Magistrate First-class who has been examined as
P.W. 23 and in the confession Boota Singh appears to have made a
clean breast of the entire story detailing the various parts played by him
and his other companions. The confession was 'sought to be corroborated by a large number of circumstances proved by the prosecution
at the trial and which will be discussed hereafter. In fact, the motive
D
for the murder of the deceased Jias been clearly indicated in the confession and was also corroborated by the oral evidence led by the prosecution as also the statement of Respondent Asa Singh recorded under
section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The High Court does not appear to have made a correct approach
to the present case inasmuch as it first tried to deal with the various
circumstances wi)ich went to corroborate the confession and dealt with
the confession in the
last and held that as the confession wa's not
voluntary no reliance could be placed on the same. We should have
expected the High Court to have dealt with the confession first because
that was the sheet anchor of the prosecution case. The other circumstantial evidenc_e adduced by the prosecution went to corroborate tte
important facts and incidents mentioned in the confession. We have
carefully perused the judgment of the trial Judge and the High Court
and we are constrained to observe that the IBgh Court has neither
marshalled the evidence correctly nor has it considered the effect of
some of the most important and vital circumstances which clinched
some of the basic issues arising in the case. A major part of the judgment of the High Court is based on pure speculations and some of the
reasons given by the High Court for rejecting the prosecution evidence
are based on conjectures and surmises.
E
F
G
We would, therefore, like to start with the confession of responH
dent Boota Singh which is the pivot of the prosecution case. It would
appear that before recording the confessional statement of the respon-
A
B
c
D
306
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1979) J S.C.R.
dent Boota Singh the Magistrate had put a number of questions to
satisfy himself that the confession was being made voluntarily and
without any coercion or undue influence. The respondent Boota Singh
on being asked as to why he was making the confession, clearly 'siated
that he was doing so because he wanted to speak the truth.
Boota
Singh further testified that he was in police custody only for two days
before making the confession and where his
treutment was good.
The Magistrate also took care to see that there was no police officer
present in the court when the confession was recorded. Jn his deposition, the Magistrate stated that Boota Singh was produced before him
at 1.30 p.m. on the 16th March and thereafter having warned him he
sent the respondent back in court custody and recorded the statement
at about 4.45 p.m. Thus, the respondent Boota Singh was given more
than three hourp for reflection. The High Court conjectures that the
respondent Boota Singh must have been sent to police custody after
being produced before the Magistrate on 16th March at 1.30 p.m. This
finding of the High Court is contrary to the evidence of the Magistrate
who clearly de12osed thus :-
"At the. time when the statement was recorded, the accused was produced by the Court Moharrir. No Sub-Inspector
was present there. There was no constable as well.
When
the Court Moharrir came with the accused the accused was
already in handcuffs. I got the same removed when he came
E
inside. The Mohar.rir went outside with the handcuffs".
F
G
This statement clearly shows that after 1.30 p.m. respondent Boota
Singh was in the custody of the Court Moharrir and it was from his
custody that the respondent
Boota Singh was produced before the
Magistrate at 4.45 p.m. for recording the confession.
For these reasons, therefore, the High Court was not justified in rejecting the confession or doubting its veracity on the supposed belief that the respondent Boota Sii;gh was in police custody from the time he was produced
befo.re the Magistrate to the time when the statement was recorded.
Another ground on which the High Court rejected the confession
was that the respondent Boota Singh was taken by K. N. Sharma, S.I.
in police custody from 10-3-64 to 12-3-64 and the High Court thought
that this period must have been utilised for coercing the respondent
Boota Singh to make a confes·sion which he ultimately made four days
later.
/'-
•
--·~
The High Court further found that Vikram Singh P.W. 59 interro-
.~
H
gated the respondent Boota Singh as far back as 9-1-1964 and it is
not explained by the prosecution as to why there was a delay of two
months on the part of the respondent Boota Singh for making the con-
..
U.P. STATE v. BOOT A SINGH (Fazal Ali.!.)
3 07
fessional statement.
The High Court further found that immediately
after the S.I. sent the respondent Boota Singh to jail custody on
12-3-64, be submitted a report for the confession of the respondent
being recorded which throws doullt on the voluntary nature of the
confession. The High Court further conjectured that from these circumstances a reasonable inference can be drawn that !hi.rd degrees
methods must have been used by the police. With very great respect
we are constrained to say that the High Court indulged in pure speculation on this aspect of the matter. There is absolutely nothing on
record to show that the respondent Boota Singh was tortu.red or beaten
while in police custody. In fact, D.W. I N. S. David, Assistant Jailor
District Jail Debra Dun who was examined on behalf of the defence
categorically stated that on 12-3-1964 K. N. Sharma, S.I. admitted
the respondent Boota Singh in jail. The witness testified that at the
time when he was admitted to jail he had no injury on his person at
that time. The witness further states that there was an entry in the
relevant registers to show that Boota Singh was sent to the Court on
16-3-1964 and there was no injury on the person of Boota Singh whert
he was sent to Court. Furthermore, on his return from court to jail,
there was also no entry with respect to any injury on his person. This
circumstance, therefore, completely rules out the possibility of Boota
Singh having been assaulted, beaten or to~tured by the police while in
their custody.
Moreover, the High Court completely overlooked a
very important fact which went to show that the confessional statement
was true and voluntary. The respondent Boota Singh in his statement
under section 342 Cr. P.C. before the committing Magistrate which is
Exhibit Ka. 113 in answer to question No. 22 stated thus :-
"Bikram Singh, Sub-Inspector and Kundan Lal Sharma,
C.I.D. Inspector, took us to P.S. DaJa';iwala and locked up
us separately from each other. They beat me severely and
pressed and _threatened me that if I did not make a statement
as desired by them, they would kill me."
"There they beat me Jo uncon·sciousness and then brought
A
B
c.
D
E
F
me and then pressed me to make a statement. I was not at
G
all in my senses, when they brought me back to the lock-up.
the court had departed."
Tbis statemeaj: was completely falsified by the circunistances indicated
above yet Boota Singh gave a complete go by to this plea taken by him
before the committing Magistrate and in his
statement before the
11
Sessions Judge he categorically stated that he made no statement before
the Magistrate, but his signature was taken on a blank paper which wa:s
308
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1979] 1 S.C.R. '
A
converted into a confession. Jn answer to question No. 21 regarding
the confession having been read out to the respondent Boota Singh, he
stated thus :-
B
c
D
E
F
G
"No I did not make any
statement. He obtained my
signature on a blank paper"
Thus, the two statements were wholly inconsistent with each other and
conclusively show that the stand taken by the respondent which differed
from court to court was absolutely false and incredible. This circumstance goes a long way to demolish the case of the respondent Boota
Singh that the confession was extorted. We are sure that if the High
Court had noticed this glaring inconsistency in the statement of the
Respondent regarding the manner in which the confession was made
it would not have thrown out the confession as it did.
On the other
hand, we have carefully perused the confession of the respondent
which seems to have a ring of truth in it and in which the respondoot
has in a very straight-forward manner narrated the various incidents
in their logical sequence. The Magistrate has also testified on oath that
he was fully satisfied that the ·statement of the respondent Boota Singh
was true and voluntary. The learned Sessions Judge after considering
the circumstances gave a clear finding that the confession was true and
voluntary and there was no reason to distrust it. The High Court was,
therefore, not justified in brushing aside the well reasoned finding of
the Session Judge on this point merely on the basis of speculation and
the circumstances which were in fact not proved. As however the confession was a retracted one it could be acted upon only if substantially
corroborated by inde!"'ndent circumstances. It is not necessary that
a retracted confession should be corroborated in each material particular, but it is sufficient .that there is a general corroboration of the
important incidents mentioned in the confession. In the instant case,
we find that the circumstances proved by the prosecution not only
amount to a complete corroboration of the confession but provide
additional circumstantial evidence against the respondent which are of
a conclnsive nature.
We would now deal with the confession in the
light of the observations made above.
To begin with, Boota Singh states in his confession that he was a
resident of Churkana in the District of Sheikhupur and at the relevant
time he was residing at Kichha in the District of Nainital. Asa Singh
and Trilok Singh were cousins, the sons of Chacha and Tau df each
other and live together at Chhidderwala.
The sister of Trilok Singh
H
was married to Piara Singh, the respondent's father's sister's son at
village Moonak, as a result of which Asa Singh and Trilok Singh used'
to visit the respondent at Kichha off and on. The respondent then goes
(
r
U.P. STATE V. BOOTA SINGH (FazaJ AJi, J.)
309
on to state that Trilok Singh wanted to purchase land at Chidderwab
and had paid Rs. 1200/- as earnest money to Hans Raj. The whole
transaction wns for
Rs. 16,000/-
or Rs.
17,000/-, but as
the
purchaser was short of money. Asa Singh, Trilok Singh, Raghuhir Singh
and Gopi Goojar along with Boota Singh conspired together to bring
some taxi from Debra Dun a[\d sell the same, so that the balance of
the consideration money for the land might be paid and the sale-deed
got registered. This· really constituted the motive for the incident leading to the murder of the deceased, Lal Singh. The gist of the motive
mentioned in the confession is clearly corroborated by the evidence of
P .W. 16 Ram Lal who has deposed that during the time of the occurrence Asa Singh and his brother Bal Singh wanted to ourchase his land
and the transaction was settled at the rate of Rs. 225 per higha, and
68 highas of land were to he sold. The purchasers had given
an
advance of Rs. 3200/- which was to be forfeited if the balance of the
amount was not paid. The witness further stated that as the balance of
the amount was eventually not paid, the vendor did not deliver posses·
sion of the land. Thus, shorn of the details Ram Lal corroborates the
statement of the respondent Boota Singh in the confesdon regarding
the transaction, whether the earnest money was Rs.
1600/- or the
consideration was more than Rs. 16,000 is a matter of detail on which
even if there is some discrepancy that will not put the prosecution case
out of court, so far as the motive is concerned. It may he mentioned
here that the Respondent Asa Singh in his statement before the Sessions Court admitted the purchase of the land from Ram Lal and
merely denied the knowledge as to whether Rs. 3200/- had been paid
as earnest money. The respondent Asa Singh's statement that the laml
was to be purchased by Bal Singh and not by him really makes no
difference as Ram Lal who was admittedly the purchaser was an independent witness and he testified on oath to the transaction relating to
the sale-deed which provided the immediate motive for the murder.
The High C0urt seems to have brushed aside the evidence of
Ram Lal merely on the ground that there was no documentary
evidence to show that there was
any negotiation between the
parties before the sale-deed was executed and held that the evidence
of Ram Lal was not sufficient proof of the fact that Asa Singh was in
any manner concerned with the land purchased by Bal Singh. In
coming to this finding the High Court completely overlooked the fact
that the nature of the transaction was clearly mentioned in the confession which has been held by ns to be true and voluntary. Once the
motive mentioned in the confession was corroborated by an independent
witness like P.W. 16 Ram Lal whose evidence was and could not• be
disbelieved by the High Court, that was sufficient to corroborate the
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
310
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1979] [ S.C.R.
part of the confession which related to motive. The finding of the High
Court on the question of motive appears to be against the weight of
the evidence on the record. The trial court rightly pointed out that the
prosecution had proved the motive for the offence by clear evidence.
The next circumstance mentioned in the confession was tbat on
8th December, 1963 Asa Singh, Trilok Singh, Raghubir Singh, Gopi
Goojar and respondent Boota Singh started in the tractor of Asa Singh
and on reaching Doiwala Asa Singh and Gopi stopped there but the
other three, namely, Trilok Singh, Raghubir Singh and Boota Singh
proceeded to Dehra Dun by bus. Boota Singh went to the Punjab Taxi
Stand and had a talk with Inder Singh for hiring a taxi and was ultimately successful in persuading Indcr Singh to give the taxi to him on hire
at the rate of Rs. 30/- per day. The respondent further mentioned in
the confession that he paid an advance of Rs. 50/- and. gave a receipt
to lnder Singh. Thereafter, three of them proceeded to Doiwala in
the taxi hired by Boota Singh which was driven by the deceased Lal
Singh who was the son of lnder Singh. This part of the confessional
statement is fully corroborated not only by oral but also by documentary evidence. In the first place, there is Exhibit Ka-4 which
is
a
receipt granted by the respondent Boota Singh to lnder Singh for the
advance of Rs. 50/- which he had paid to lndcr Singh for hiring the
taxi.
The receipt appears to have been signed by the respondent as
K. Sharma. The signature of the Respondent was sent to the expert
along with his admitted specimen signatures and the expert P.W. 32
Shiv Ram Singh found that it completely tallied with the signature of
the respondent Boota Singh. The expert bad marked the signature of
the respondent Boota Singh at Exhibit Ka-4 as S-3894.
Thus,
the
facts mentioned in the receipt fully corroborate the statement of the
respondent Boota Singh mentioned above and the fact that the signature
of the respondent Boota Singh tallied with the signature which he had
made on this document is an intrinsic proof of the genuineness of
Exhibit Ka-4. The High Court seems to have rejected this important
document mainly on the ground that it was not mentioned
in the
report filed by P.W. 1 Harcharan Singh, brother of the deceased who
had lodged a written report at the Police Station Dalanwala, Dehra
Dun stating therein that the respondent had hired the taxi at the rate
of Rs. 30/- per day on the ground that he had to visit several places
like Hardwar, Roorkee, Saharanpur, Meerut, Moradabad,
Mathura,
Brindaban, Aligarh, Agra etc. The description of the car is given in
the report and the witness has expressed the apprehension that the
respondent may have killed the driver and driven away the car. By
the time the report was lodged Harcharan Singh was not in possession
·-
1
U.P. STATE v. BOOTA SINGH (Fazal Ali. J.)
31 I
A
of full facts, and therefore, he gave a very brief report; If he did not
mention the receipt given by the respondent in this report that by
itself would not throw any suspicion on the authenticity of the receipt
more particularly when the conclusive circumstance that the
receipt
contained the signature of the respondent as found by the expert had
been established. Moreover, the report was not really the report of
murder co.ntaining a detailed narration of the iacts. The brother of the
deceased was naturally upset because the taxi having been taken on
the 8th December had not returned for 23 days but he did not know
what had happened. In these circumstances, there was no occasion for
Harcharan Singh to mention every possible detail in this
report.
Furthermore, what the High Court completely overlooked was
that
the respondent Boota Singh himself clearly mentioned in his confession that he had paid an advance of Rs. 50/- and executed a receipt.
B
Apart from this, there is the oral evidence of P.W. 2 Inder Singh,
P.W. 8.