Bhagwan Singh & Ors vs State Of M P
Author : Ishita Arora
Citation: (2002) 3 MP LJ 67, 2002 CRILJ 3169.
Bench: Justice S. Rajendra Babu, Justice D. M. Dharmadhikari and Justice G.P. Mathur.
Introduction
In the Present Case of Bhagwan Singh & Ors vs State Of M P, A judicial confession is that confession which is made by an accused before a Magistrate or some court in some judicial proceedings.
It is admissible as evidence only if it is made with true intentions; it is voluntary, deliberate and clearly proved. In the present case, the Supreme Court held that a judicial confession which is involuntary, unreliable cannot be admitted as an evidence in the case.
The court also held that held that it is dangerous to depend on a shaky testimony of a child witness who can be easily tutored in the period between the date of incident and the date of his deposition.
Facts of the case
The facts of the case state that it was alleged that on the night of 28th and 29th February, 1984 the three appellants entered the house of deceased Mata Prasad and killed him and his daughter Munni Devi.
The conviction order passed by High Court was based mainly on the evidence of only a child eye-witness Arvind Kumar who was also in the house.
He made a statement to the police and named three appellants and said that he saw them killing his grandfather and his mother (Munni Devi). But, the three appellants were not arrested immediately, but with some delay and there is no explanation for this delay.
Moreover, the maternal uncle of the child was the first person to meet child witness after the incident. If the child had seen the incident then the uncle would have been the first person to whom the child would have disclosed the incident.
However, the prosecution omitted admitting the uncle as their witness. The child neither disclosed about the incident to his father. The trial Judge recorded the demeanor of the child witness that he was pausing and sometimes faultering while deposing and did not seem to understand few questions put to him.
The trial Judge, therefore, held that it would be dangerous to depend on such shaky testimony of a child witness who could have been tutored in the period between the date of incident and the date of his deposition.
There were other circumstances too which also made the evidence of the child witness highly unreliable. Also, the judicial confession made by acquitted accused Pooran Singh to the Judicial Magistrate was also proved to be involuntary and unreliable as he was in police custody immediately before making the confession.
Issues and facts of law
- Whether the appellants are guilty for the offences mentioned under section 302, 396, 460 and 404 of IPC?
Judgement
The appeal was allowed. The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence made by the High Court dated 11/3/2002 and the judgment of acquittal dated 06/9/1985 made by the trial court was maintained.
Bhagwan Singh & Ors vs State Of M.P.
Bhagwan Singh & Ors vs State Of M P
Author : Ishita Arora
Citation: (2002) 3 MP LJ 67, 2002 CRILJ 3169.
Bench: Justice S. Rajendra Babu, Justice D. M. Dharmadhikari and Justice G.P. Mathur.
Introduction
In the Present Case of Bhagwan Singh & Ors vs State Of M P, A judicial confession is that confession which is made by an accused before a Magistrate or some court in some judicial proceedings.
It is admissible as evidence only if it is made with true intentions; it is voluntary, deliberate and clearly proved. In the present case, the Supreme Court held that a judicial confession which is involuntary, unreliable cannot be admitted as an evidence in the case.
The court also held that held that it is dangerous to depend on a shaky testimony of a child witness who can be easily tutored in the period between the date of incident and the date of his deposition.
Facts of the case
The facts of the case state that it was alleged that on the night of 28th and 29th February, 1984 the three appellants entered the house of deceased Mata Prasad and killed him and his daughter Munni Devi.
The conviction order passed by High Court was based mainly on the evidence of only a child eye-witness Arvind Kumar who was also in the house.
He made a statement to the police and named three appellants and said that he saw them killing his grandfather and his mother (Munni Devi). But, the three appellants were not arrested immediately, but with some delay and there is no explanation for this delay.
Moreover, the maternal uncle of the child was the first person to meet child witness after the incident. If the child had seen the incident then the uncle would have been the first person to whom the child would have disclosed the incident.
However, the prosecution omitted admitting the uncle as their witness. The child neither disclosed about the incident to his father. The trial Judge recorded the demeanor of the child witness that he was pausing and sometimes faultering while deposing and did not seem to understand few questions put to him.
The trial Judge, therefore, held that it would be dangerous to depend on such shaky testimony of a child witness who could have been tutored in the period between the date of incident and the date of his deposition.
There were other circumstances too which also made the evidence of the child witness highly unreliable. Also, the judicial confession made by acquitted accused Pooran Singh to the Judicial Magistrate was also proved to be involuntary and unreliable as he was in police custody immediately before making the confession.
Issues and facts of law
Judgement
The appeal was allowed. The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence made by the High Court dated 11/3/2002 and the judgment of acquittal dated 06/9/1985 made by the trial court was maintained.
Related Posts
Vishaka & Others vs State of Rajasthan : Case Summary
Case Summary : Best Bakery Case
Case Summary: A. Vijaykanth vs Public Prosecuter, Dharmapuri Distt. & Ors.