Decided on July 07,1900

NIRMAL DAS Respondents


Blair and Henderson, JJ - (1.) After setting forth the facts of an ordinary dacoity, continued as follows: The police do not appear to have, obtained any clue for nearly a fortnight. They then began to make arrests, and upon the 12 February last; and the succeeding days confessions were made by three of the present appellants--Nathu, Bhola (of Nagla Gulal) and Darola (of Ratu). The police also, on or before the date mentioned, had got into communication with one Genda, who afterwards appeared under a tender of pardon, and came before the Magistrate to give evidence for the prosecution. Three persons, other than those here as appellants, were committed, and upon trial were acquitted by the Sessions Judge. Upon the hearing in the Sessions Court, Genda, who had appeared before the Magistrate and given evidence for the prosecution, was called for the prosecution. He then said that he knew nothing about the dacoity, that the Collector did not offer him a pardon, and that he had heard nothing about it. The statement made before the Magistrate was put before him, and he admitted making it, but he said that it was all false, and that he was forced to make it. Upon the hearing in the Sessions Court, the evidence given by him before the Magistrate, which was put in to contradict the statement that he knew nothing about the dacoity, was used as substantive evidence against the appellants here. Against many of them there is no sworn evidence delivered in the Sessions Court at all. . . .
(2.) The cases of those appellants who have been convicted mainly upon what Genda swore before the Magistrate stand upon an altogether different footing, and the weight to be attached to the evidence of Genda requires careful consideration. He is the person who was called and accredited by the prosecution before the Magistrate. Upon being again called for the prosecution in the Sessions Court he flatly denied that he knew anything about the dacoity, and that he took any part in it. The Sessions Judge then confronted him with the statement he had made before the Magistrate, and he was compelled to admit that he had made such a statement, and alleged that he had done it under compulsion. It is that evidence before the Magistrate so repudiated by him that the prosecution has put forward as evidence to be believed and acted upon in the Sessions Court, and upon that evidence the Sessions Judge has thought it fair to act. As to the admissibility of that evidence to contradict his allegation that he knew nothing whatever about the dacoity, there can be no question; but the use of the allegations made by him before the Magistrate as substantial evidence of the facts alleged by him seems to us fraught with the gravest peril. The terms indeed of Section 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which render the evidence of a witness taken before the committing Magistrate capable of being treated as evidence in the discretion of the presiding Judge, are couched in the widest possible language; but we entertain the strongest opinion, in common with Mr. Justice Straight, that it never was the intention of the Legislature that the substance of such a statement before the Magistrate, when retracted and repudiated, should be used by the prosecution as substantial evidence of the allegations made in it. It is difficult to conceive that any responsible tribunal should permit the conviction of a person upon such evidence if it stood by itself; and indeed as far as what is properly called evidence is concerned, Genda's repudiated statement is all that there is on the record to justify the conviction in several of the cases before us. Taken with this confession upon oath are the confessions made by certain of the appellants which it is our duty not to treat as evidence but to "take into consideration." It is not perhaps necessary or easy to define precisely what is meant by these words "taking into consideration." This, at all events, it must mean, that they are not to have the force of sworn evidence. Indeed it has been most definitely ruled in the Bombay High Court in Queen-Empress V/s. Khandia (1890) I.L.R. 15 Bom. 66, that a conviction resting on such a confession alone cannot be maintained. In our opinion, therefore, no conviction in these cases can be sustained, which rests only upon the repudiated evidence of Genda and the statements made by the co- accused. Among the persons who have been convicted on such evidence are: Nirmal Das, Darola (of Nagla Gulal) and Sanwalia.
(3.) We allow the appeals of these three appellants. We set aside their convictions and order them to be released.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.