State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Singhara Singh and Ors

CASE BRIEF

Appellants- State of Uttar Pradesh

Respondents- Singhara Singh and Ors.

Decided On: 16.08.1963

Statues Referred-

1. Constitution of India
2. Indian Evidence Act, 1872
3. Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC)

Case Referred-

• Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh and Anr. vs. The State of Vindhya Pradesh MANU/SC/0053/1954
• Deep Chand vs. The State of Rajasthan MANU/SC/0118/1961
• Ram Sanehi and Ors. vs. State MANU/UP/0087/1963
• Willie (William) Slaney vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh MANU/SC/0038/1955

Facts:

1. A shopkeeper i.e. One Raja Ram in Afzalgunj in Uttar Pradesh was shot dead in his shop on the 20^th Day of March in 1959.
2. 7 persons in total including 3 of the present respondents were arrested and prosecuted for murder of Mr. Raja Ram.
3. The trial was held before the additional Sessions Judge of District Bijnor and subsequently upon trial held Mr. Singhara Singh guilty for Murder U/s 302 of IPC.
4. Subsequently, the additional Sessions judge of Bijnor held the other respondent i.e. Tega Singh and Bir Singh for Abetment of murder under Sec 302 read with other provisions of the crimes namely 120B, 109 and 114 of the said code.
5. Tega Singh was sentenced for life whereas Mr. Singhara Singh and Bir Singh were sentenced to death. Moreover, the other four accused were acquitted.
6. The convictions were appealed before the High Court of Allahabad as it also had the regular reference before it confirms the death sentences.
7. The High Court reversed the judgments of the trial court and set aside the judgment and rejected the reference.
8. Aggrieved by the same, the state filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India for the same.

Issue:

Whether the oral evidence given by the magistrate who has recorded the confessions of the accused be admissible in a court of law?

Contentions by Parties-

Petitioner’s Arguments

1. The contentions for the respondents were that the statements under Section 164 could be said to be duly made when the procedure enshrined under Section 164 would be fully satisfied. Whereas Section 533 allows the admissibility of oral evidence in order to prove that the procedure laid down under Section 164 has been duly followed or not.
2. The argument advanced by the petitioners was that section 164 was incorporated to attach an advantage on the state side, i.e. prosecution and hence its disdain will only amount to the deficiency of advantage on the part of the prosecution to be able to rely on Section 80 and Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act and hence will be only relying upon the oral evidence of the magistrate to prove it.

Respondent’s Arguments

1. The counsels for the petitioners contented that during any criminal investigations there is only one legal method to record a confession i.e. the procedure mentioned under Sec. 164. Therefore, by deliberating authority upon magistrates to record confessions and statements have forbidden the admissibility of the oral evidence by the magistrate.
2. They further contented that the Section 164’s object was to provide an evidence being available to the prosecution but keeping in view the shield and interest of suspect.
3. That the Nazir Ahmed case was applicable to the present facts and therefore the court should apply the principles laid down in it and held that the magistrate was not allowed to give oral evidence upon the confessions he has recorded under Section 164 CrPC.
4. It was also contended that if the magistrate were allowed to give oral evidence upon confessions recorded by him, then the protection and the benefit of doubt that is enshrined as rights of the accused would be void in its essence. It is also insane to think that the legislators did intend the safeguards of the accused to be ignored. Therefore, it is pertinent for the court to disallow the oral evidences of such magistrates.

Judgment

The apex court through A.K. Sarkar, J.C. Shah and M. Hidayatullah, JJ

. (16.08.1963 – SC) : MANU/SC/0082/1963 Held the following: –

1. The court came to conclusion that the principles of Nazir Ahmed Case covers fairly the facts of this case and hence the principles which were applied there would be applied here too.
2. After analysis and contemplating the law, the bench came to conclusion on the question that whether Section 164 can be useful while using it against the accused, held that it could not be done so and the oral evidence upon it is inadmissible.
3. Court also reasoned that if the oral evidence upon it is allowed then the rights of the accused which is attached to Section 164 would be reduced to nothing and it would not be wise upon thinking that the legislature wanted to ignore the rights of the accused under Section 164.
4. When the statue provides specifically that a magistrate of Second class only can obtain a confession from an accused if only, he is specially empowered by the government for the same. The same was not the situation here. Mr. Dixit (Magistrate) could not prove that he was specially empowered by the govt and therefore in that situation, furnishing oral evidence upon the confession recorded by him against the accused should not be made admissible in the interest of equity.

Rule of Law-

The provision of the law which was under scrutiny by the Hon’ble apex court of India was the admissibility of oral evidence by magistrates upon confession recorded by him against the accused.

Conclusion

In Conclusion it could be said that this case is a good example to the question as to whether magistrates could furnish oral evidence u/s 164 of CrPC against the accused whose confession has been recorded by him.

Therefore it was finally held in this case that an magistrate could not furnish oral evidence upon the confession given by the accused to him under Sec 164 in the interest of equity.