# " THIMMA alias THIMMA RAJU v. STATE OF MYSORE

- **Citation:** [1971] 1 S.C.R. 215
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1970-04-02
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. c 111 of 1968
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/thimma-alias-thimma-raju-v-state-of-mysore-4995
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

B
c
D
E
F
G
"
THIMMA alias THIMMA RAJU
v.
STATE OF MYSORE
April 2, 1970
21S
[M. H!DAYATULLAH, C.J., A. N. RAY AND I. D. DUA, JI.]
El'idence Act (I of 1872), ss. 8 and 17-Evidence oJ abscondingRe/e.•ancy and weight-Information, already with po/ice-Discovery as
a ,.,·rn/t of accused's statement-If admissible under s. 17-Extra ;udicial
confession, weight of.
The appellant was convicted of the offence under s. 302 l.P.C. Being
a pauper he was defended by counsel at State expense. The entire evidence
was circumstantial and the dead body, when it was recovered, was in a
dec~mpo;ed state and was incapable of identification.
Therefore,
this
Court, examined the evidence afresh, contrary to its settled practice and
came to the conclusion that the evidence on record establisr.ed the appellant's guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.
With respect to three items of
evidence, namely, (I) an extra-judicial confession by the appellant to his
nephew; (2) the 'recovery of the dead body as a result of the appellant's
statement; and (3) the conduct of the appellant in absconding immediately
aftu the police suspected his complicity in the crime,
HELD : (I) An unambiguous confession if admissible in evidence,
and free from suspicion suggesting its falsity, is a valuable piece of evid0;:nce which possesses a high probative force because it emanates directly
frcm the person committing the offence.
The Court, must however be
satisfied that it is voluntary and was not the result of inducement, threat
or promise as contemplated by s. 24 of the Evidence Act and that the
surrounding circumstances do not indicate that it was inspired by improper
or collateral considerations.
For this purpose, the court must scrutinise
all the relevant factors, such as the person to whom the confession is
made. the time and place of making it, the circumstances in which it was
made. and finally, the actual words used. [224 CJ
In the present case, the pers6n to whom the extra-judicial confession
was made was not a person in authority and there was no question of any
inducement, threat or promise. Nor- has any cogent reason been suggested
as to why the appellant should have made an untrbe confession within
24 hou'rs of the disappearance of the deceased. The appellant appears to
have been impelled by some inner urge to take the assistance of his nephew
to go to the place of occurrence and see what haryi;ned to the dead body,
Such behaviours cannot be considered unnatural. The confession is free
from any taint which would throw suspicion on its voluntary character 8l)(I
it has a ring of truth in it.
The fact that during the investigation the
nephew was also suspected of being' involved in the murder would also 'hot
cast any doubt on the voluntary character of the confession or on its true
nature, because, it was his knowledge derived from the confession that
invited suspicion on l;iim.
Further, though the evidence of the ndt>hew
does not require corroboration, the finding of the dead body and other
articles and other evidence on record corroborate it in material particulars.
Therefore the confession to the nephew is admissible in evidence and !ieing
true, deserves to be acted upon. [224 E-H]
(2) When the nephew was suspected of complicity he would nave in
all probability, disclosed to the police the existence of the dead body and
216
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1971 J l S.C.R.
the other articles at the place where they were actually found. Therefore,
it would, in the circumstances of the case, be unsafe to rely upon the
information given by the accused, leading to t_he discovery of the dead
body, for proving his guilt. [225 D'F]"
(3) Evidence of abscondiPg is relevant as evidence of conduct under
s. 8 of the Evidence Act but the guilty mind of the accused is not !bi:
only conclusion that could be drawn by the Court, because, even innocent
persons when suspected of grave crimes are tempted to evade arrest.
(225 G-Hl

## Text

B
c
D
E
F
G
"
THIMMA alias THIMMA RAJU
v.
STATE OF MYSORE
April 2, 1970
21S
[M. H!DAYATULLAH, C.J., A. N. RAY AND I. D. DUA, JI.]
El'idence Act (I of 1872), ss. 8 and 17-Evidence oJ abscondingRe/e.•ancy and weight-Information, already with po/ice-Discovery as
a ,.,·rn/t of accused's statement-If admissible under s. 17-Extra ;udicial
confession, weight of.
The appellant was convicted of the offence under s. 302 l.P.C. Being
a pauper he was defended by counsel at State expense. The entire evidence
was circumstantial and the dead body, when it was recovered, was in a
dec~mpo;ed state and was incapable of identification.
Therefore,
this
Court, examined the evidence afresh, contrary to its settled practice and
came to the conclusion that the evidence on record establisr.ed the appellant's guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.
With respect to three items of
evidence, namely, (I) an extra-judicial confession by the appellant to his
nephew; (2) the 'recovery of the dead body as a result of the appellant's
statement; and (3) the conduct of the appellant in absconding immediately
aftu the police suspected his complicity in the crime,
HELD : (I) An unambiguous confession if admissible in evidence,
and free from suspicion suggesting its falsity, is a valuable piece of evid0;:nce which possesses a high probative force because it emanates directly
frcm the person committing the offence.
The Court, must however be
satisfied that it is voluntary and was not the result of inducement, threat
or promise as contemplated by s. 24 of the Evidence Act and that the
surrounding circumstances do not indicate that it was inspired by improper
or collateral considerations.
For this purpose, the court must scrutinise
all the relevant factors, such as the person to whom the confession is
made. the time and place of making it, the circumstances in which it was
made. and finally, the actual words used. [224 CJ
In the present case, the pers6n to whom the extra-judicial confession
was made was not a person in authority and there was no question of any
inducement, threat or promise. Nor- has any cogent reason been suggested
as to why the appellant should have made an untrbe confession within
24 hou'rs of the disappearance of the deceased. The appellant appears to
have been impelled by some inner urge to take the assistance of his nephew
to go to the place of occurrence and see what haryi;ned to the dead body,
Such behaviours cannot be considered unnatural. The confession is free
from any taint which would throw suspicion on its voluntary character 8l)(I
it has a ring of truth in it.
The fact that during the investigation the
nephew was also suspected of being' involved in the murder would also 'hot
cast any doubt on the voluntary character of the confession or on its true
nature, because, it was his knowledge derived from the confession that
invited suspicion on l;iim.
Further, though the evidence of the ndt>hew
does not require corroboration, the finding of the dead body and other
articles and other evidence on record corroborate it in material particulars.
Therefore the confession to the nephew is admissible in evidence and !ieing
true, deserves to be acted upon. [224 E-H]
(2) When the nephew was suspected of complicity he would nave in
all probability, disclosed to the police the existence of the dead body and
216
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1971 J l S.C.R.
the other articles at the place where they were actually found. Therefore,
it would, in the circumstances of the case, be unsafe to rely upon the
information given by the accused, leading to t_he discovery of the dead
body, for proving his guilt. [225 D'F]"
(3) Evidence of abscondiPg is relevant as evidence of conduct under
s. 8 of the Evidence Act but the guilty mind of the accused is not !bi:
only conclusion that could be drawn by the Court, because, even innocent
persons when suspected of grave crimes are tempted to evade arrest.
(225 G-Hl
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No .
.245 of 1969.
A
B
Appeal by special leave frqm the judgment and order dated
July 17, 1969 of the Mysore High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
c
111 of 1968 and Criminal Referred Case No. 2 of 1968.
K. M. K. Nair, for the appellant.
S. S. Javali and S. P. Nayar, for the respondent.
The Judgment of tllu Cow• •
.. vrn; delivered by
Dua, J. The appdL•n'
,, ~onvi~ied by the Sessions Judge,
.Shimoga, under s. 302, LP· . lOr 1he murder of one Govindappa,
a village postman and was «wardc·l capital sentence. He was also
held guilty of an offence under s. 201, I.P.C. and sentenced to
rigorous imprisonment for 7 years. The High Court of Mysore
confil'!ned the conviction and sentence under s. 302, I.P.C. It
also upheld his conviction under s. 201, I.P.C. but set aside the
sentence on this count observing that when a person is convicted
both under s. 302 'ands. 201, I.P.C. it is undesirable to pass separate sentence for both offences. In this appe.al with special leave
the appellant challenges his conviction and
sentence
under
s. 302, I.P.C.
The appellant was tried, along with Laxmamma (accused
No. 2) wife of the deceased Govindappa and her mother Gangamma (accused No: 3) wife of late Mylappa. The two women
were charged with abetment of murder and were acquitted by
the trial court. We are not concerned with them in this appeal.
There is no eye witness in the case and the courts below have
accepted the prosecution story on circumstantial evidence. The
question before us is whether the circumstantial evidence accepted by the courts below establishes the murder of the deceased
by the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
The
prosecution
story may now be stated.
•
Tl_le deceased, Govindappa, resident of Kommanal village
m Shimoga Taluk worked
as
Extra-Departmental
Delivery
Agent in tho postal department. He was attached to the post
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
.H
TH!MMA v. MYSORE (Dua, J.)
217
office at Kommanal and was in
~ommon parlance called a
postman.
G. Sangaiah (P.W. 1) resident .of vilage Abbalagere
worked as an Assistant School Teacher m Kommanal.
The
distance between the two villages is U
miles.
P.W. 1 also
worked as Branch Postmaster in Kommanal, and was
called
Extra Departmental Postmaster.
According to him the duties
of the deceased were to bring the postal bags from the M.M.S.
Bus on the main road in the morning at about 8.30 a.m. and
after the bags were opened by P.W. 1 to deliver the postal
articles to their respective addressees.
At about 4.30 p.m. he
would return to the post office to take the postal bags to the Mail
Service Bus.
Six villages were attached to this post office. The
deceased used to deliver postal articles in two groups of three
villages each on alternate days.
On July 21, 1967 at about 10
a.m. the deceased received the postal articles from P.W. 1 for
delivering them to the addressees in villages Kittadal, Kunchenhalli and Bikkonahalli.
The articles to be delivered
included
two registered letters addressed to Krishna Naika and· Halanaika
of Kittadal. At about 3.30 p.m. the deceased returned and told
P.W. 1 that the addressees, having gone to their fields, were not
in the village, and that he would again try to deliver the
registered articles tc them. The deceased took the postal bags
from the post office for delivery to the Mail bus.
He did not
return to duty thereafter. As the deceased had been in the
service of the post office for nearly 3t years, P.W. 1 did
not
suspect his bona fides.
On July 22, 1967 P.W. 1 went to the
house of the deceased but did not find him there. Thinking that
the deceased might have been unavoidably helc;I. up somewhere
P.W. I in addition to his own duties performed those of the'
deceased as well on that day.
On July 23, P.W. 1 went to
village Kittadal to inquire about the delivery of the registered
articles to the addressees. There ke learnt from Krishna Naika
(P. W. 15) that on July 21, 1967 the deceased !lad delivered
to him the rep;istered article at about 6 p.m. P.W. 15 on being
questioned by th~ court gave the time of delivery to be about
4 p.m.
But this difference· as to time, in the opinion of the
trial court, was due to the fact that the witness had no precise
idea of time.
After having waited for another day on July 24.
I 967 P.W. I reported to the Postal Inspector, Shimoga Circle
about the disappearance of the deceased exhibit p. I is this report.
P.W. l informed the Postal Inspector of the steps taken by him
in his search for the deceased. Those Rteps included the inqui·
ries made by him from the addressees of the registered letters
which had been delivered by the deceased. P.W. 1 had looked
at those registered letters and left instructions for their production when required. It was further reported that the receipts
L11Sup.Cl--l~
218
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1971] l S.C.R.
pertainiμg to. the delivery of RL No. 456/Udipi, and RL No.
825 /Udipi and the visit book had not been returned by the deceased to the post office. A request was made. by P.W. 1 for the
appointment of someone in place of t)J.e deceased so that the
registered articles received on the )4th and 25th July, 1967 be
delivered to their respective addressees.
The Postal Inspector
was asked to visit Kommanal for making the necessary arrangements.
This report r~ched the Inspector (S.W. Pawar, P.W.
2) on July 26, 1967 and he visited Kommanal on July 27,
1967.
There he collected four Panchayatdars and examined
Laxmarnma, the wife of the deceased.
The same day he sub
milted his report, Ex. P-3, to the Sub-Inspector of
Police,
Kasaba Police Station, Shimoga, attaching with it a copy of the
report of P.W. 1, and also a copy of the statement of Laxmamma.
In this report all the relevant facts were stated. The important thing
to be noted about this report is that according to it the deceased had
two keys of letters boxes fixed at Kunchenhalli and Somanakoppa.
A
B
c
The duplicate keys of these locks were, however, available with
P.W. 1.
This report was sent because, according to P.W. 2,
neither. the wife of the deceased nor anyone else from the village/ D
had reported to the police about the disappearance pf the de-
·ceased While investigation into the fact of disappearance of the
-deceased pursuant to this report was going on, it appears that
Bheema Naika, (P.W. 3 J, resident of Kommanal while grazing
his cattle near Ayanoor forest sensed some foul smell from a
spot near 'Korakalu'.
On going closer, he saw, what appeared
to him to be, a human skeleton with Khakhi half pants, Klwkhi
shirt and belt and a pair of chappals. He got frightened and
reported to the village pate! about what he had seen. As it was
late in the evening the pate! did not go to the spot that day.
The following morning, August 4, 1967. P.W. 3 took the pate!
IShankargowda, P.W. 12) and some others to the spot
and
'Showed them what he had seen.
The. pate! then renorted the
matter to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Shimoga Taluk (Ex. P-11 ).
Investigation then appears to have started for establishin!! the
identity of the dead body, the cause of his death and, if his death
was considered to be homicidal, who was. the offender. As a
result of the investigation the three accused persons, as obsen'f!d
earlier, were sent up for trial.
The three questions requiring consideration by us relate to the
identity of the dead body repm;ented to be of the deceased, the
cause of the death and whether the appellant has committed the
murder. In so far as tli.e question of identity is concerned, there
can hardly be any doubt that the skeleton was that of the deceased.
The Kha,khi shirt, Ex. M.O. I and the half pant Ex. M.0. 2 ha1•e
E
F
G
H
B
D
E
F
H
THlMMA v. MYSORE (Dua, J.)
219
been identified by P.W. 1 as the uniform given to the deceased.
The visit book (Ex. M.O. 5) is also proved by P.W. 1 to have
ooen delivered to the deceased. The two postal acknowledgments
entrusted to the deceased with the registered articles (Ex. M.O.
6) and the two du!Jlicate keys (Exs. MO 3) of the Jocks of the
post boxes at Kunchenhalli and Somanakoppa have
also been
identified an\! proved by P.W. I. All these articles
were
recove1ed from near the dead body.
This evidence leaves little
doubt that the skeleton was of the deceased.
Some doubt was
sought to be created on the question whether the bones found at
the spot were those of a human body.
But on this point the
testimony of Dr. Shambulingaswami, Assistant Surgeon, McGann
Hospital, Shimoga (P.W. 26) is clear and it establishes beyond
doubt that the bones found were those of a human being.
For
the present we are leaving out of con>ideration the evidence of
Ganga ( P.W. 4) and the oral confession made by the appellant
to this witness. We will deal with that witness a little later .
Turning to the question whether the deceased died a natural
death or his death was homicidal, Dr. Ramu, Associate Professor of Forensic Medicine, Bangalore Medical College, was required
to examine this question and the skeleton concerned was forwarded to him. His report (Ex. P-20) records. the following opinion :
"I am of opinion that (al all the bones sent are of
h~man origin and appear to belong to the same indiVIdual;
(b) th~ bones belong to a male;
( c) the age of the person is between 25-35 years;
( d) the height of the person is about 5 feet 6 inches
+one inch;
( e) the cause of death is due to external violence;
( f) the time since death is about 4-8 weeks from
the d.ate of examination."
This report is dated August 30, 1961. When Dr. Ramu appeared
as a witness he was cross-examined by the counsel for the appellant.
A suggestion was thrown that the dead body might have been
b" .ten by wild animals.
This suggestion was denied by the
witness who replied that the gnawing by the wild animals would
r-osult in irregular surface which was not the case in respect of .the
bones sent to him.
The witness also refuted the suggestion that
the base of the skull in question could have been fractured by a
violent fall. The fracture of bones caused by wild animals trampling on them was also stated by the witness to be different in
220
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(197 l J I S.C.R.
nature from the fractures which were found in the present case.
The doctor was clearly of opinion that the injuries caused to the
bones sent to him for examination were ante-mortem and not
post-mortem. On being que~tioned by the cou;t the doctor replied
that ar!east two blows must have been given to the deceased, one
on the nape of the neck and the other on the left cheek. He further
stated that the spinal cord must have been cut and completely
severed because the two piec.~s M.O.
18
and M.0.
!8(a)
were completely severed and this result could not have come
about without· the spinal cord being cut.
The injury on the
base of the skull, he continued, must have been the result of a
very hard blow and this was by itself sufficient in the ordinary
course. of nature to cause death. The man whose bones were sent
to him, must, according to the doctor, have be.en brutally attacked
with a sharp-cutting instrument,
This evidence, in our opinion.
convincingly establishes that the deceased was the victim of gr;evous assauln as a result of which he died and the courts below were
quite right in so concluding.
We now come to the question whether it was the appellant
who committed the murder. It is in evidence that the deceased
was last seen in the company of the ,appellant at abo.ut 4.30 p.m.
when the deceased had gone to deliver the mail bags to the bus.
At about 3.30 p.m., according to P.W. I, the deceased had gone
to the. post office and taken the postal bags to be delivered to thi:
Mail Bus, M.M.S. Bus Service. He had 'also told the witness thut
he would again try to contact Krishna Naika and Halla Naikn of
Kittadal for delivering the registered articles.
Chcnnabasappn
(P.W. 16) has also deposed that he saw Govindappa and the
uppellant delivering the mail bags to the bus after they had taken
coffee in the hotel near the bus stop that evening. P.W. 9, th~
brother of the appellan1 who was also at the bus stop that evening
saw the deceased and the appellant travelling in the same bus.
Gangamma (P .W. 8), the wife of the brother of the deceased who
Jives in a portion of the same house in which the deceased lived.
has stated that she saw the deceased on Friday evening at about
4.30 p.m. with the appellant going from their house towards the
post office building. The appellant was at that time carryin,!! an
nxe on his shoulder. The demeanor of this witness was described
by the trial court as natural. Sulochana, an eleven year old
dami;hter of the deceased, uopcared as P.W. 10 and stated that on
Friday, the day her father disappeared, at about 4.30 p.m. he left
the house to deliver the mail bags. At about S p.m. the appellant
took an axe from her mother and proceeded towards the post
office. At about 8 p.m, the appellant returned home. Accordin!!
to this witness four or five days earlier, the appellant had suggested
to the deceased to accompany him to the forest area for brln11ing
A.
c
[)
[
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
THIMMA v. MYSORE (Dua, J.)
221
teak logs so as to be able to make some money. People of
village Hararoghatta required teak logs ·and the deceased, according
to the suggestion, could earn at least Rs. 15/ •. The deceased first
. expressed his inability to spare time from his official duties but the
suggestion, could earn at least Rs. 15/ ·. The deceased first ex·
presed his inability to spare time from his official duties but. the
suggestion having been repeated the deceased ultimately agreed.
This witness, though being only 11 years old was not administered
oath, created a favourable impression on the trial court as is
obvious from the following note :
"The witness gave her evidence without faltering or
visible signs of hesitancy. She speaks clearly, precisely
and straight to the question."
The trial court also interrupted the witness in the middle of her
testimony, in order to satisfy itself, by breaking the continuity of
the story, that she was not reproducing a tutored version.
On
going through her statement we are satisfied that she is a truthful
witness and her evidence deserves to be accepted and was rightly
accepted by the courts below.
There is in our opinion, cogent
and trustworthy evidence to support the conclusion of the courts
below that the deceased was last seen with the appellant a short
time before his disappearance. Having upheld this conclusion,
we may appropriately examine the appellant's explanation. He
has merely denied, by expressing his ignorance, that the deceased
had been last seen alive with him. In fact he has simply describ·
ed as false all the material allegations including that of his
acquaintance with Laxmamma and that he used to stay in
Kommanal. This bare denial without any explanation is not wholly
unimportant.
This takes us to the motive for the appellant to get rid of the
deceased. There can be little doubt on the evidence on the
record that the appellant had developed close intimacy with the
wife of the . ..deceased.
The evidence of Gangamma (P.W. 8),
wife of the brother of the deceased who, it may recalled, lives in
one portion of the ancestral house owned by the two brothers, is
quite clear on the point. Laxmamma, the wife of the deceased,
used to run her shop in the other half of the same house. P.W. 8
was, therefore, in a position to know about the appellant's frequent
visits to that shop.
According to her the appellant sometimes
used to take his food in Laxmamma's house and also to sleep there.
H
This was d~e to their intimacy.
Th011gh many customers used
! to ·come to that shop no one ever stayed on in the house except
the appellant. P.W. 8 has also deposed that the deceased and his
wife used to quarrel with each other and the decea,sed used to
222
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1971 J 1 S.C.R.
p!'otest against her feeding the appellant and neglecting him in the
m'a'tter of food. To this Laxamma used to report that the deceased
did not provide her with enough money for that purpose whereas
the appellant ,did.
The suggestion th!it her husband and the
deceased had quarrelled over partition of a field was repudiated
by her. The trial court was favourably impressed by the demean-
. or cf this witness as well.
P.W. 9, the brother of the deceased,
has also stated about the quarrels between the deceased and his
wife.
He has deposed :
"My brother and his wife A2 were often quarreling
bitterly. That was after· U gadi of last year. fie used
to complain to his wife that she was not cooking food at
the proper time. A2 in turn used to reply that he was
not supplying her with provision and
therefore he
could not expect her to cook food in time. He sometimes
used to thrash A2. She would weep and sleep away.
When my brother used to go away without food, I
used to invite him to take his food.
Sometimes he
used to take his food. in my house.
After the last
Ugadi, Thimma (Al)'s visit and stay in my brother's
house increased. A: and A2 used to go together for
work.
They used to gp to Nyamathi Shandy. to fetch
goods. Al used to carry the goods back to Komminal
from Nyamathi.
Two days prior to the disappearance of my brother
there was a bitter quarrel between A2 and himself.
During that quarrel, Govindappa questioned A2 how
Al remained under his roof and that she fed him and
that by the ti_me he returned, there was nothing left for
him. A2 replied that he earns and supplied the provisions and therefore she was feeding him whereas he
( Govindappa) did not supply the provisions and consequently she did not look after him. The quarrel resulted
in severe beating of A2 by my brother. A2 never served
him food."
From this evidence the motive on the part of the appellant to do
away with the decef!sed is obvious.
We now turn to the extra-judicial confessions of the appellant
and his conduct on the day following the disappearance of the
deceased. Ganga (P.W. 4) is a nephew of the appellant, being
~e son of his elder brqther. The appellant, accordiμg to this
W1tne§_s, had taken up a contract of uprooting plants and trees so
as to render. the land cultivable. This witness used to visit
Laxmamma's shop when he was working at Kommanal and he
A
c
D
E
F
G
H
,_
A
B
c
D
THIMMA v. MYSORE (Dua, I.)
223
also knew the deceased.
On Saturday following the day when
the deceased had disappeared, in the early hours of the morning
a little before sunrise,_ t!!e appellant went to the house of the
witnei;s in Bodekanna colony near Kommannal and woke him up.
As the witness began to tether his bullocks the appellant went to
his father's house nearby. After a short while the appellant
returned and told the witness that the previous evening he had
gone to the field of one Mahadevappa and had'lost his purse containing Rs. 200/-. The appellant desired the witness to accompany him to find the lost purse. On their way through the forest•
by the side of the hill they met one Sivappanavar Basappa (P.W.
13) on whose enquiry as to what had brought them there so
early, the appellant replied. that he had some work in the fallow
land of Mahadevappa . On reaching the 'Korakalu' which was
about 2! ft. deep, the witness saw the dead body of Govindappa.
The dead body was lying flat on its back and the witness observed
injuries on the neck, face and chest of the deceased.
He also
saw near the dead body Khakhi shirt (M.0. 1), Khakhi half
pants (M.O. 2), a pair of chappals (M.O. 7l, a plaster belt
(M.O. 8) and banian (M.O. 10). The appellant then pulled the:
red waist thread (M.0. 10) worn by the deceased and as he took
it into his hands, a pair of small keys (M.0. 3-A) were noticed
by the witness. The appellant remarked that those were not the
keys he wanted. So saying he threw away the thread, the keys and
a talisman (M.0. 11) which was also found there. Directing the
E · witness to keep a watch from a higher elevation the appellant cut
some branches of the trees and after collecting some twigs covered
the dead body with them.
After picking up some papers the
appellant and the witness started on return journey. After covering some distance the appellant threw away the papers in a bush.
The appellant told the witness that he had killed the deceased
with the sickle ( matchu) given by the wife of the deceased and
that the same had been ~brown away by him in a bush. As they
F
G
H
reached the main road the appellant warned the witness not to
disclose to anyone what he had seen and learnt, otherwise he was
threatened with the same fate as the deceased had met.
The trial court was not favourably impressed by the testimony
of Ganga (P.W. 4) 'though it ·felt convinced that on the day following the disappearance of the deceased he had knowledge both
of the commission of the offence and of the place where the dead
body was lying. That court did not rely on his testimony in regard
to. the extra-judicial confession because it was considered incredible.
The High Court on appeal disagreed with the trial court in its
appreciation of the evidence of P.W. 4. According to the High
Court the evidence of P.W. 4 was corroborated by the evidence
of P.W. 13 an~P.W. 25. The extra-judicial confession was,
224
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1971 ]l S.C.R.
therefore, held to be admissible and trustworthy.
Before us it
was contended .that the extra-judicial confession said to have'been
made to P.W. 4 is inadmissible and in any event without'corroboration in material particulars from independent source it is unsafe to act upon it. It was emphasised that P.W. 4 was at one
stage of the investigation suspected of complicity in this murder
and, therefore, he should be treated no better than an accomplice.
In our opinion, this criticism is not justified. An unambiguous
confession, if admissible in evidence, and free from suspicion
suggesting its falsity, is a valuable piece of evidence which ·possesses a high probative force because it emanates directly from
the person committing the offence. But in the process of proof of
an alleged confession the court has to be satisfied that, it is voluntary, it does not appear to be the result of inducement, threat or
promise as contemplated by s. 24, Indian Evidence Act and the
surrounding circumstances do not indicate that it is inspired by
some improper or collateral consideration suggesting that it may
not be true. For this purpose, the court must scrutinise all the
relevant factors, such as, the person to whom the confession is made,
the time and place of making it, the circumstances in which it is
made and finally the 'actual words. In the case in hand it is quite
clear that P.W. 4 is not a person in authority. There can thus oe
no question of any inducement, threat or promise rendering the
confession irrelevant. Nor has any cogent reason! been suggested
why the appellant should have μi.'ade an untrue confession to P.W. 4
within 24 hours of the disappearance-of the deceased. On the other
. hand, the appellant appears to have been impelled by some inner
urge to take the assistance of P.W. 4, his real nephew, to go to
the place of occurrence to see as to what had happened to the dead
body of his victim.
Such behaviour cannot be considered unnatural. The confession appears to us to be free from any taint
which would throw suspicion on its voluntary character and it has
a ring of truth in it. The fact that during the investigation P.W.
4 was suspected of being involved in the murder would also not
cast any doubt on the voluntary character of the confession or on
its true nature because it is the knowledge of P.W. 4 derived from
this very confession which perhaps invited suspicion on him. We
do not consider this to be a cogent ground for holding that P.W.
4 had any motive to concoct the story of · confession.
This
confession is, therefore,
admisible
in
evidence
and
being
true, deserves to be acted upon. ·The words used are quite
clear and ·admit of no doubt of the appel!ant's guilt.
And then
though the evidence of P.W. 4 does not need any corroboration
we find that corroboration in material particulars is forthcoming
on the record. The existence of the \:lead body and all the
"other articles at the place where they' were later found and the
evidence of Basappa (P.W. 13) which proves the visit of the
A
B
c
D
'{
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
THIMMA v. MYSORE (Dua, 1.)
225
appellant and P.W. 4 to the spot on Saturday following the disappearance of the deceased furnish strong c9rroboration. The
High Court was thus quite right in relying on the extra-judicial
confession made to P.W. 4. The confessions said to have been
made to P.W. 31 and to Abdul Rahman (P.W. 22> stand on a
different footing.
Both the courts below have not considered it
safe to rely on these confessions and we do not lind any sufficient
reason for disagreeing with th1:m.
-
Reliance on behalf of. the prosecution was also placed on l!l.
information given by the appellant which led to the discovery of
the dead body and other articles found at the spot. It was contended that the information received from him related distinctly to
the facts discovered· and, therefore, the statement conveying the
information was admissible in evidence under s. 27 of the Indian
Evidence Act. This information, it was argued, also lends support
to the appellant's guilt. . It appears to us that when P. W. 4 was
suspected of complicity in_ this offence he would in all probability
have disclosed to the police the existence of the dead body and. the
other articles at the place where they were actually found. Once
a fact is discovered from other sources there can be no fresh discovery even if relevant information is extracted from the accused
and courts have to be watchful against the ingenuity of the investigating officer in _this respect so that the protection afforded
by the wholesome provisions of ss. 25 an.4 26 of the Indian Evi•
dence Act is not whittled down by mere manipulation of the
record of case diary. It would, in the circumstances, be somewhat unsafe to rely on this information for proving the appellant's
guilt. We are accordingly disinclined to take into consideration
this statement.
The trial court and the High Court have also been influenced
by the f,act that the appellant had absconded after September l,
1967 when the police got suspicious of his complicity in this
offence. It is true that the appellant did make himself scarce
with effect from September 1, 1967 till he was arrested on
September 5, 1967 and this con'duct is relevant under s. 8 of the
Indian Evidence Act and might well be indicative to some extent
of guilty mind. But this is not the only ~onclusion to which it
must lead the court. Even innocent pers11os may, when suspectecl
of grave crimes, be tempted to evade arrest: such is the instinct
of self-preservatio.n in an average human being. We are, therefore, not inclined to attach much signilicance to this conduct on
the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case.
In this case the appellant being a pauper was provided with
counsel at State expense in the trial court. The entire prosecution case depends on circumstantial evidence and the dead body
226
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1971 J 1 S.C.R.
was actually recovered in a decomposed state when it was not
capable of identification. In view of these peculiar features we
undertook to examine the evidence ourselves, a course which this
Court as a matter of settled practice, does not ordinarily adopt.
We are satisfied foat the evidence on the record establishes the
appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the courts below
were quite right in convicting him. On the question of sentence
also we do not find any cogent ground for interference. This
appeal fails and is dismissed.
Y.P.
Appeal dismissed .
. •
B