PETITIONER:
SATBIR SINGH & ANR. ETC. ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF PUNJAB
DATE OF JUDGMENT14/03/1977
BENCH:
GOSWAMI, P.K.
CHANDRACHUD, Y.V.
SHINGAL, P.N.
CITATION:
1977 AIR 1294 1977 SCR (3) 195
1977 SCC (2) 263
ACT
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (Act II of 1974), S.
378 (Code of 1898, s. 417)--Appeal against
acquittal--Salutary principles in dealing with an appeal.
Evidence Act (Act I of 1872), 1872--S. 24--Confession
obtained by the superior officer by questioning separately
the accused after several abortive attempts to secure con-
fession, S. 24 is attracted.
HEADNOTE
All the accused were tried for offences u/s. 302/120B
and 364 I.P.C., but acquitted by the Additional Sessions
Judge, Amritsar. On State’s appeal against acquittal, the
High Court convicted five of the appellants (Satbir Singh,
Paramjit Singh, Harbhajan Singh, Shiv Narain and M.P. Singh)
under s. 302/120B I.P.C. and sentenced them to imprisonment
for life. Satbir Singh was also convicted on the sole
testimony of Puran Singh (PW3) u/s. 364 I.P.C. and sen-
tenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine.
The High Court held the extra judicial confessions made by
Shiv Narain and Harbhajan Singh before R.K. Kapur (PW 41)
the commander Border Security Force as admissible in evi-
dence before convicting them and rejected the plea of en-
counter on the Indo-Pakistan border. The High Court con-
victed the remaining eight appellants (Ajit Singh,
Darshan Singh, Arian Singh, Baghal Singh, Tara Singh, Dial
Singh, Bachan Singh and Malook Singh) u/s. 364 I.P.C. and
sentenced them also to rigorous imprisonment for seven years
with fine.
Allowing the appeals under the Supreme Court (Enlarge-
ment of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1971, the
Court,
HELD: (1) This was not a fit case where the High Court
should have interfered with the acquittal of any of the
appellants. The High Court has not at all considered the
reasons given by the Sessions Judge for acquitting the
accused. It has given its own reasons for convicting the
appellants but that is not enough in an appeal against
acquittal. [205 B-C]
(2) As a practical proposition, in an appeal against
acquittal, it is always necessary that the reasons given by
the trial court for according an acquittal should be exam-
ined by the High Court. If the conclusions of the trial
court are not based upon any evidence or they are such as no
reasonable ’body of men, properly instructed in law can
reach, on the evidence, or they are so palpably wrong as to
shock ’the sense of justice, the High Court will be justi-
fied in taking a contrary view by giving its own reasons.
It is not enough that it is just possible for the High
Court to take a contrary view. While interfering with
acquittal the judgment of the High Court should demonstrate
clearly the unworthiness of the conclusions of the trial
court having regard to all the relevant evidence in record.
The High Court has followed these salutary principles in
dealing with an appeal against acquittal. [204 G-H, 205 A]
(3) In deciding whether a particular confession attracts
the frown of section 24 of the Evidence Act, the question
has to be considered from the point of view of the confess-
ing accused as to how the inducement. threat or pro-raise
proceeding from a person in authority would operate in his
mind.
In the instant case, the extra judicial confessions by
the two accused Shiv Narain and Harbhajan Singh, have to be
completely excluded from consideration being hit by s. 24 of
the Evidence Act. When the two accused were -questioned
separately after several abortive attempts to secure confes-
sions it cannot be said that there was no inducement, threat
or promise of some kind. [203 H-204 A, E]
196
Observation:
The witness cannot be relied upon by resort to a kind of
special pleading. in his aid. The line of approach in a
criminal case in order to find justification for conviction
on .shaky testimony by making a virtue of the inalertness of
the police administration is not to be commended.
JUDGMENT
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal Nos.
178179 and 228 of 1975.
(From the Judgment and Order dated 10-4-1975 of the
Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 40 of
1972).
Frank Anthony, Herjinder Singh and S.N. Singh, for
appellant No. 1 in Crl. A.178/75 and appellants in Crl.
179/75 and Appellants Nos. 1-2 in Crl. A.228/75.
A.K. Sen, and Herjinder Singh for appellant No. 2 in Crl.
A.178/75.
R.L. Kohli, Rameshwar Nath and Miss Manju Malhotra for
appellant No. 3 in Crl. A. No. 228/75.
O.P. Sharma and Miss Kusum Chaudhury, for the
respondents in all the appeals.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
GOSWAMI, J.--These appeals under the Supreme Court
(Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1976,
are directed against the judgment and order of the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana convicting five of the appel-
lants (Satbir Singh, Paramjit Singh, Harbhajan Singh, Shiv
Narain and M.p. Singh) under section 302/120B, Indian Penal
Code, and sentencing them to imprisonment for life. Satbir
Singh was also convicted on the sole testimony of Puran
Singh under section 364 IPC and sentenced to rigorous im-
prisonment for seven years and fine. The remaining eight
appellants (Ajit Singh, Darshan Singh, Arjan Singh, Baghal
Singh, Tara Singh, Dial Singh, Bachan Singh and Malook
Singh) were convicted under section 364 IPC and sentenced to
seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine. They had all
earlier been acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Amritsar.
This case throws a lurid light on smuggling activities
at the international India-Pakistan border near Amritsar.
Amongst the appellants (hereinafter to be described as
the accused) M.P. Singh was an Inspector of the Border
Security Force (BSF), Shiv Narain was a Sub-Inspector (BSF)
and Harbhajan Singh was a Constable (BSF). Accused Ajit
Singh is the father of the two accused, Satbir Singh and
Paramjit Singh. Ajit Singh is alleged to be a big ’smuggler
indulging in his smuggling activities at the India-Pakistan
border with his two sons and the other accused persons,
namely, Darshan Singh, Arian Singh, Baghal Singh, Tara
Singh, Dial Singh, Bachan Singh and Malook Singh. It is
alleged that Inspector M.P. Singh, S.I. Shiv Narain and
Constable Harbhajan Singh, along with other BSF personnel
were conniving at the smuggling activities of Ajit Singh and
party and were reaping their illegal harvest:.
197
Shingara Singh and his son Hardip Singh and Kartar Singh
are the three deceased whose murders form the subject matter
of this case. While the dead bodies of Hardip Singh and
Kartar Singh were found that of Shingara Singh was not
available.
Puran Singh (PW 3) son of Shingara Singh (deceased) was
a member of the gang of smugglers headed by accused Ajit
Singh and in the course of smuggling activities there was a
quarrel with regard to the sharing of money to the extent of
Rs. 15,000/- which was said to be his due and which Ajit
Singh and party were not paying. A few months prior to July
6, 1970, the date of occurrence, when accused Satbir Singh,
Jasbir Singh and ten or twelve labourers along with Puran
Singh smuggled 15 jackets of gold each weighing 1000 tolas
from Pakistan into Indian territory with the connivance of
Inspector M.P. Singh and S.I. Shiv Narain (BSF), Puran Singh
succeeded in slipping away under the cover of darkness with
two jackets of gold. The gold with which Puran Singh fled
away was then worth about Rs. 5 to 6 lakhs.
May 20, 1970: A report was lodged by Shingara Singh
deceased, at Police Station, Gharinda, alleging that his son
Puran Singh (PW 3) who had been carrying on smuggling activ-
ities with the sons of accused Ajit Singh was taken away by
accused Satbir Singh and some others (not before us) on May
6, 1970, in a car. He did not then suspect anything. But
now he had a firm suspicion that Satbir Singh, Jasbir Singh
and Paramjit Singh, sons of Ajit Singh of Village Burj,
Rajinder Singh and Makhan Singh, had abducted his son Puran
Singh over a dispute about .the smuggled gold and they had
kept him concealed at some unknown place with the intention
to kill him. On receipt of this report a case under section
364 IPC was registered by S.I. Baldev. Singh (PW 63) at
Police Station, Gharinda (Ex. P.P.Y.).
July 7, 1970: A report was sent to Police Station,
Gharinda by accused Shiv Narain, S.I. (BSF) about an en-
counter of BSF with smugglers on the mid-night of July 6,
1970, on the border of India Pakistan at Border Pillar No.
100 near Amritsar that "two sikh young men" fall dead to the
fire opened by the Border Security Force of the Indian side.
July 17, 1970: The first information report (Ex. PPZ/R)
of the present case was registered by Police Station, Gha-
rinda, on the report dated July 12, 1970 (Ex. P.P.Z.) of
D.S.P. Surjit Singh (PW 64) which, inter alia, disclosed:
"I heard a rumour on 8th July, 1970, on my
return from casual leave that three persons
namely Shingara singh son of Inder Singh,
Kartar Singh son of Mangal Singh and Hardip
Singh son of Shingara Singh jats residents
of Ranike, Police Station Gharinda had been
abducted forcibly by Ajit singh of Burj and
his sons residents of village Burj, Police
Station Gharinda and party from near Crystal
Chowk, Amritsar and that they had, been shown
killed in an encounter in connivance with
Border Security Force and Pak Rangers".
198
This report of D.S.P. Surjit Singh has discounted the en-
counter story as a fib but yet it continued to be the de-
fence of the accused. According to the trial court "the
encounter version appears to be true".
Were the three persons, Shingara Singh, Hardip Singh and
Kartar Singh, killed in an encounter with the BSF or mur-
dered in pursuance of a conspiracy .to abduct and murder ?
While the first part of the question need not even be
proved, the second part must needs be proved to the hilt.
The prosecution case further is that Puran Singh after
having been taken away from his village was taken to the
Haveli of Ajit Singh where he was asked about the gold which
he had stolen away. Puran Singh informed the accused persons
that he ’had delivered the gold to his brother, Hardip
Singh. It is alleged that Puran Singh was afterwards taken
to the border and left with accused M.P. Singh and accused
Shiv Narain who later on handed over ’him to Shaffi and
Yakub, two Pakistan smugglers and the latter took him to
village Dial (Pakistan). Puran Singh was brought to the
Indian side of the border on the night intervening 6th and
7th July, 1970, but was again taken back to Pakistan where-
from he could manage to escape and cross over to the Indian
side of border only on November 6, 1970, to figure as an eye
witness to the murder of his father.
It is alleged that on July 6, 1970, Shingara Singh,
Hardip Singh and Kartar Singh (all deceased) along.with
Harnam Singh (PW 5) went. to Amritsar. Shingara Singh and
Hardip Singh had gone to attend court, Kartar Singh to
sell his vegetables and Harnam Singh to attend to his wife,
Smt. Piaro, who was a patient in the V.J. Hospital. After
being free from their work at about 1.00 p.m. the three
deceased along with Harnam Singh (PW 5) went towards the
V.J. Hospital. When they had reached Crystal Chowk on way to
the Vijay Hospital a big vehicle and a car came from the
side of the Railway Station, in which accused Ajit Singh,
Jasbir Singh (absconder), accused Satbir Singh, Satara
(absconder), accused Paramjit Singh, accused Baghal Singh,
accused_ Tara Singh, accused Arian Singh, accused Bachan
Singh, accused Darshan Singh, Pritu. (Pritam Singh)
(acquitted), accused Malook Singh and accused Dial Singh
with two other; Jetsons in police uniforms (Pamma and Malki-
at) were travelling. ’These persons were armed with guns and
revolvers. The accused came out of the vehicle and physi-
cally lifted Shingara Singh, Hardip Singh and Kartar Singh
and whisked them away in the said vehicles. It is alleged
that the deceased persons were first taken to the HaveIi of
Ajit Singh in village Burj where they were belaboured and
later on, blindfolded and tied, removed to the Indo-Pakistan
border where on that night some goods were to be exchanged
between the accused with Balkar Singh (PW 4) and the Pakis-
tani smugglers. Accused M.P. Singh was also present there.
At about mid-night all of them including accused Shiv Narain
and accused Harbhajan Singh moved near Pillar No. 100. This
party handed over 1-1/4 maunds of silver to Yakub and
Shaffi, Pakistani smugglers and received gold in return
Hardip Singh and Kartar Singh were brought by accused Satbir
Singh and others towards Indian side of the border but
Shingara Singh
199
was left behind with the Pakistani smugglers. Balkar Singh
(PW 4) then enquired as to why Shingara Singh had been
handed over to Pakistanis. At that moment accused Shiv
Narain fired two shots with very light pistol. Accused
Harbhajan Singh, accused M.P. Singh, accused Paramjit
Singh and accused Satbir Singh also fired shots at Hardip
Singh and Kartar Singh from a distance of 25 yards who then
dropped dead. Accused Jasbir Singh (absconder) came there
and untied their hand’s and removed the cloth covering their
eyes. A rifle was placed near the dead body of Hatdip Singh
and a Kitpan was placed near the dead body of Kartar Singh.
Balkar Singh (PW 4) also heard the sound of a fire shot in
Pakistan territory when Ajit Singh (accused) said that
Shingara Singh had also been killed.
According to the prosecution to justify the killing of
Hardip Singh and Kartar Singh, accused M.P. Singh, accused
Shiv Narain and accused Harbhajan Singh with other officials
of BSF, manipulated an encounter story and got a false case
registered at Police Station, Gharinda, on July 7, 1970 (Ex.
P.P. O/1) on a "ruqa" having been sent by S.I. Shiv Narain
(accused) falsely alleging, inter alia, that on a secret
information having been received by Inspector M.P. Singh
(accused) that some Smugglers would bring some goods from
Pakistan to India they conducted an. ambush behind Burj
(Border Pillar) No. 100 on the night intervening 6th and 7th
July, 1970, and during the process in defence the Naka
party fired which resulted in killing of two persons who
were subsequently identified as Hardip Singh and Kartar
Singh.
The accused persons were charged under section 364/120B
IPC for abducting Puran Singh. They were also charged under
section 364/120B IPC for abducting Shingara Singh, Hardip
Singh and Kartar Singh. They were further charged under
section 302/102B IPC for causing the death of Kartar Singh
and Hardip Singh. They were also charged under section 109
IPC for abetting the murder of Shingara Singh which offence
was committed in consequence of the abetment.
The prosecution examined 68 witnesses. The accused
denied the charges and the BSF accused suggested a motive
for the prosecution by alleging animus against the D.S.P.
Surjit Singh (PW 64). According to them Kartar Singh and
Hardip Singh were killed as a result of an encounter with
smugglers on the border.
The Sessions Judge giving his reasons for not accepting
the evidence of the eye witnesses and other material evi-
dence acquitted all the accused. The High Court on appeal
confirmed the acquittal of two accused, namely, Pritam Singh
and Mehar Singh, but convicted the appellants as mentioned
above.
With regard to the charge under section 302/120B IPC the
case will depend upon the evidence of Puran Singh (PW 3) and
the extrajudicial confession by the accused, Shiv Narain
and Harbhajan 14--240SCI/77
200
Singh, before R.K. Kapur (PW 41). With regard to the charge
under section 364 IPC the prosecution rests upon Hamare
Singh (PW 5) and also upon the evidence of Gurdial Singh (PW
10), Inspector Gurmukh Singh (PW 11) and Constable Amrik
Singh (PW 46) with regard to the Roznamcha entry (Ex. PP.
A). We may also note here that Puran Singh (PW 3) and
Balkar Singh (PW 4) were the two eye witnesses to the murder
and Balkar Singh (PW 4) was disbelieved both by the Sessions
Judge and the High Court. Harnam Singh (PW 5) is an eye-
witness to abduction. We should also note that Gutdip Singh
(PW 14), Atma Singh (PW 27) and Mohinder Singh (PW 28) who
were witnesses with regard to the charge of abduction were
also disbelieved both by the Sessions Judge and the High
Court. Harnam Singh (PW 5) who is the eye-witness to abduc-
tion was disbelieved by the Sessions Judge but partly be-
lieved by the High Court.
In the above state of the evidence Mr. Sharma appearing
on behalf of the state rests his case on the evidence of
Puran Singh (PW 3) and the extra-judiCial confession made by
the accused Shiv Narain and Harbhajan Singh before R.K.
Kapur (PW 41) with regard to the murder charge under sec-
tion 302/120B IPC. He also relies upon the Roznamcha and
the recoveries.
We will therefore first examine the reasons given by the
Sessions Judge for acquitting the accused. After narrating
the facts deposed to by Puran Singh (PW 3) the Sessions
Judge held that "the story on the face of it appears to be
false". According to Puran Singh (PW 3) the accused took
him away to Ajit Singh’s Haveli and then to the Indo-Paki-
stan border only with a view t9 recover the gold which he
had earlier managed to steal away. _ The Sessions Judge took
note of the fact that Puran Singh had told the accused that
the gold was lying with his brother, Hardip Singh. It was,
therefore, inconceivable that this clue with regard to the
gold would not be pursued by the accused and Hardip Singh
would be left out and Puran Singh alone would be taken away.
This witness even after he had Seen the murder of his
father Shingara Singh, on July 6, 1970, stayed in Pakistan
for about four months without disclosing this fact to any-
body nor did he communicate about it to any of his rela-
tions. Although this witness said that he crossed from
Pakistan to India only on November 6, 1970, after the mur-
der, and was arrested and interrogated by S.I. Jai Ram (PW
58) and was also prosecuted for crossing the border, there
is no evidence from any police officer, nor even from S.I.
Jai Ram (PW 58). No documentary evidence, which would have
been available if his statement Was true, was produced in
the case. Apart from that, this witness stated that he was
arrested by S.I. Jai Ram and he narrated the entire occur-
rence to him. S.I. Jai Ram does not Support him. On the
other hand he had earlier stated before the committing
Magistrate that he did not tell anything about the said
murders to S.I. Jai Ram.
The Sessions Judge also note several discrepancies in
his evidence and finally came to the conclusion that he was
not actually present at the’ time of the murders nor was he
abducted by the accused as alleged.
201
The High Court does not appear to have closely consid-
ered the treasons given by the SesSions Judge for disbeliev-
ing the testimony of Puran Singh. it is difficult to appre-
ciate how the High Court can say that the statement of
this witness "seems to be quite natural" in view of the
infirmities pointed out by the Sessions Judge. After exam-
ining the entire discussion of the evidence of this witness
by the High Court, we are not satisfied that the High Court
was right in relying upon the testimony of this witness.
It is pointed out that the High Court was not correct in
observing that "it is not disputed that he (Puran Singh) is
being tried for having come to Indian territory on November
6, 1970 and the moment he entered the Indian territory, he
was taken into custody and his statement was recorded by the
police". On the other hand the Sessions Judge found just to
the contrary and there is no reference in the judgment of
the High Court to the discussion by the Sessions Judge with
regard to this aspect.
We have next to see the reasons given by the Sessions Judge
for disbelieving the testimony of Harnam Singh (PW 5). This
witness gave evidence about the abduction of the three
deceased from the Crystal Chowk, near V.J. Hospital, Amrit-
sar. The witness is a near relation of the deceased and he
admitted that when the three deceased were abducted he
suspected that the accused might inflict injuries on their
person. Even so he did not go for police assistance nor did
he inform even Mangal Singh (PW 17), father of the
deceased .Kartar Singh, about the occurrence although the
latter was residing with him in the same house. He also did
notask the relations of the deceased to ’lodge any report
with the police. Crystal Chowk is a busy commercial area
where there are shops and some residential houses and the
shops were open at the time of the incident. Even so this
witness stated that there were no shops or bazar near the
place of occurrence. This witness named five accused persons
including two absconders and stated that he knew them by
names about one year prior to the occurrence. Since he had
named accused Paramjit Singh and accused Satbir Singh in the
committing court he was asked there to identify these two
accused. He, however, wrongly pointed towards accused M.P.
Singh as Paramjit Singh and accused Pritam Singh as Satbir
Singh. Accused M.P. Singh was not even alleged to be present
at Amritsar at the time of abduction. Although this witness
stated that he informed Kabal Singh (PW 6) brother of
Shingara Singh, Kabal Singh did not corroborate him on this
point.
Further, Harnam Singh (PW 5) states about abduction of the
three deceased from Crystal Chowk. The High Court accepts
his evidence as being corroborated by witnesses regarding
his presence at Amritsar with the three deceased persons.
It is difficult to see how because his presence at Amritsar
is proved the further fact about the abduction of the three
deceased from Crystal Chowk is also established. There is
no corroboration whatsoever of this part of the story. If
the High Court has to look for corroboration of the evidence
of Harnam Singh even about his presence at Amritsar on its
own reasoning, the principal part of the prosecution case
about abduction depending upon his sole testimony cannot be
held to be established. The
202
High Court also seeks to find corroboration of this ’part of
the case from Roznamcha of July 6, 1970 (Ex. P.P. A) wherein
a certain information from an undisclosed source was re-
ceived at 2.00 P.M. by Gurdial Singh (PW 10) to the effect
"that there was some fight between some smugglers near
Crystal Chowk or some legislator had been abducted". This
information is hearsay in absence of the informant. The.
name of the informant is not even disclosed. Apart from
this, this Roznamcha does not corroborate Harnam Singh (PW
5) with regard to his statement that the three deceased
persons were abducted by the accused from Crystal Chowk.
The High Court did not fail to observe that the reasons
given by the witness for his belated examination by the
police as "padding obviously.. at the instance of the po-
lice". Even so, the High Court explained away the fact’ of
Harnam Singh’s not reporting to the police ’in a very unusu-
al way. The High Court observed firstly that it was
natural for the witness not to be involved in the dispute of
smugglers and secondly that there was no use informing the
police as no petty police officer would take action against
the international smugglers. The High Court went on to
record that "it appears in the present day administration
that no petty police officer is likely to take responsibil-
ity in’ the matter of prosecuting international smugglers
without having the blessings of the highest police officer
in the district and even above". Witnesses, like Harnam
Singh, were, therefore, according to the High Court "help-
less". We cannot commend this line of approach in a crimi-
nal case in order to find jurisdiction for conviction on
shaky testimony by making a virtue of the inalertness of
the police administration. The witness cannot be relied
upon by resort to a kind of special pleading in his aid. We
find that the High Court has not given any cogent reason for
taking a different view with regarding to the appreciation
of evidence of this witness by the Sessions Judge.
About recovery of fire-arms and gold at the instance of
some of the accused, the case rested on the evidence of the
police officers alone. The other search witnesses were
declared hostile on account of their not supporting the
prosecution. The Sessions Judge did not feel it safe to act
upon the testimony of police witnesses including Inspector
Bachan Singh (PW 68) in the matter of disclosure statement
as well as of recovery of the fire-arms and of gold in
absence of corroboration by independent witnesses. The High
Court held that there was no reason to disbelieve the
police witnesses. But when both the Sessions Judge and the
High Court seem to be in agreement in finding that there
was "padding" by the police in respect of evidence produced
in the case, it could not be said that the Sessions Judge
was so grievously in error that contrary appreciation of the
evidence was compelling under the circumstances.
There is also the evidence with regard to extra-judicial
confessions said to have been made by the accused Shiv
Narain and Harbhajan Singh before R.K. Kapur (PW 41), the
Commandant of the Border Security Force. The Sessions Judge
has considered that evidence as inadmissible under section
24 of the Evidence Act.
203
The High Court, differing from the opinion of the Ses-
sions Judge, held the extra-judicial confession as admissi-
ble in evidence since, according to the High Court, "it
cannot be held that he (Kapur) gave any threat; inducement
or promise to the accused". The High Court observed:
.lm10
"When this (warning) was conveyed to the ac-
cused by Shri Handa D.S.P., the accused still stuck
to the encounter versions and made their statements
in writing supporting the encounter version. The
said threat of Shri Kapur P.W. did not work and the
accused stuck to their old story ......It was on
19th July, 1970 that Shiv Narain and Harbhajan
Singh were questioned separately when he told them
that they should come" out with the truth
otherwise .they would them˜ selves be responsible
for their actions and if they had done anything
wrong, they would go to jail. Instead of giving
them any promise of help, he in fact told them that
if they were in the wrong, they would go to
jail .... From the statement of this witness,
which I have gone through minutely, it is difficult
to hold that he gave any inducement, threat or
promise to the accused persons and that the ac-
cused persons made the confessions in pursuance
thereof".
Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that a
confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a
criminal proceeding, if the making of the confession appears
to the court to have been caused by any inducement, threat
or promise, having reference to the charge against the
accused person, proceeding from a person in authority and
sufficient, in the opinion of the court, to give the accused
person grounds, which would appear to. him reasonable, for
supposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or
avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the
proceedings against him.
Indeed, Mr. Kapur was a person in authority being the
Commandant of the rank of a Senior Superintendent of Police
and the confessing accused were his subordinates. Apart
from this, it appears from his evidencethat the oral
confessional statements were not readily forthcoming from
the accused persons but they had to be interrogated on
several occasions. He further advised D.S.P. Handa to
interrogate them "with a warning that they should state the
truth otherwise they would not be supported by me". Mr.
Kapur further admitted in his cross-examination that he "did
tell Mr. Handa on telephone on 10th July, 1970 that he
should give a warning to Border Security Force people to
come out with truth otherwise they themselves would be
responsible for their actions". Mr. Kapur also himself
"enquired from M.P. Singh and Shiv Narain accused about the
matter on 19th July, 1970 telling them that now that the
case has been registered they should state the truth".
In deciding whether a particular confession attracts the
frown of section 24 of the Evidence Act, the question has
,to be considered
204
from the point of view Of the confessing accused as to how
the inducement, threat or promise proceeding from a person
in authority would operate in his mind.
It is true that Mr. Kapur, in his evidence, denied
having held out: to the accused any inducement, threat or
promise. We, however, find. that on July 1-7, 1970, the
police gave a go by to the encounter story and the present
case was registered against the accused. Two days after, on
July 19, 1970, Mr. Kapur having already failed to get any
confessional statement from the accused through other agen-
cy, took upon himself to question accused Shiv Narain and
Harbhajan Singh separately and this time he succeeded in
securing confessional statements. When the two accused were
questioned. separately after several abortive attempts to
secure confessions, can it be said that there’ was no in-
ducement, threat or promise of some kind proceeding from.
Mr. Kapur to have made any impact on their minds ’resulting
in the confessions ? Mr. Kapur having stated to the accused
on July 19, 1970, that "now that the case has been regis-
tered they should state the truth", it is difficult to hold
that by this statement he would not generate in the minds of
the accused some hope and assurance that if’ they told the
"truth" they would receive his "support" which he had earli-
er’ conveyed to them through D.S.P. Handa. It is true that
in the course of cross-examination Mr. Kapur stated that he
had told the accused that if they had done anything wrong
they would go to jail. But having regard to the effect of
the totality of the evidence of this witness, we are unable
to hold that the confessions made by the accused before Mr.
Kapur on July 19, 1970, were free from the taint of infirmi-
ty within the mischief of section 24 of the Evidence Act.’
We are, therefore, clearly of opinion that the extra-judi-
cial confessions by the two accused, Shiv Narain and Harbha-
jan Singh, have to be completely excluded from consideration
being hit by section 24 of the Evidence Act.
Similarly not much can be made of abscondence of certain
accused when other material evidence connecting the accused
with the crime has failed in this case.
A serious infirmity in the judgment of the High Court is
that it has not at all considered the reasons given by the
Sessions Judge for acquitting the accused. The High Court
has given its own reasons for convicting the appellants but
that is not enough in an appeal against’ acquittal.
As a practical proposition, in an appeal against acquit-
tal, it is always necessary that the .reasons given by the
trial court for recording an acquittal should be examined by
the High Court. If the conclusions of the trial court are
not based upon any evidence or they are such as no reasona-
ble body of men, properly instructed in law, can reach, on
the evidence, or they are so palpably wrong as to shock the
sense of justice, the High Court will be justified in taking
a contrary view by giving its own reasons. It is not enough
that it is just Possible for the High Court to take a con-
trary view. While interfering with acquittal the judg-
ment of the High Court should demonstrate clearly
205
the unworthiness of the conclusions of the trial court
having regard to all the relevant evidence in record. We
are unable to say in these appeals that the High Court has
followed these salutary principles in dealing with an appeal
against acquittal.
We may also observe that the High Court need not have
mentioned the fact that the Sessions Judge was "suspended on
account of corruption charges". If we may say so, it was
absolutely unnecessary to refer to this in disposing of the
appeal.
We are clearly of opinion that this was not a fit case
where the High Court should have interfered with the acquit-
tal of any of the appellants. The appeals are allowed.
The judgment and order of the High Court are set aside and
the appellants are acquitted of all the charges. The appel-
lants, Satbir Singh, Paramjit Singh, Harbhajan Singh, Shiv
Narain and M.P. Singh shall be released from detention
forthwith. The remaining appellants, Ajit Singh, Darshan
Singh, Arjan Singh, Baghal Singh, Tara Singh, Dial Singh,
Bachan Singh and Malook Singh, who have been on bail shall
be discharged from their bail bonds
S.R. Appeals allowed.
206