BHAGWAN SINGH & ORS Vs. STATE OF MP 

Citation	2002 CrLJ 2024
Date of Judgement	23 January 2003
Court	Supreme Court
Case Number	Appeal (crl.) 789 of 2002
Petitioner	Bhagwan Singh & Ors
Respondent	State Of M.P.
Bench	S.Rajendra Babu , D.M. Dharmadhikari & G.P. Mathur
Referred	Section 302 , 396 , 460 404 of IPC

FACTS 

The facts of the case revolve around the civil dispute where  three people entered the house of Mata Prasad and killed him and his daughter Munni Devi . Three younger boys were also there in the house when the accused entered the house . Arvind Kumar , 6 years old, had seen the incident and played the role of eye – witness . He made a confession and said that he saw the three accused killing his grandfather and his mother .

 The three accused were not arrested immediately , there was some delay and there was no explanation to delay . Also , his uncle was the first person whom he met after the incident and he didn’t even told anything to him . The child did not tell anyone even though he did not tell his father . The court heard the witness of the child and held that the child was pausing in-between and was not able to understand the questions he was asked . 

Moreover , the accused was also taken as a witness and was put before the court . He was been pressurised and threatened by the police to give false confessions . Therefore , the court held that it would be dangerous to rely on such shaky testimony . Hence , the judgement given by the trial court was maintained . 

ISSUES

Whether the appellants are guilty for the offences mentioned under section 302 , 396 , 460 and 404 of IPC ? 

WITNESSES

• ARVIND KUMAR 

The main evidence which was led by the prosecution against the accused is the alleged child eye witness Arvind Kumar . Arvind Kumar who was 6 years old at the time of the incident was sleeping with his two younger brothers and his deceased mother Munni Devi . The child affirms that he has seen Bhagwan Singh holding the face of his mother and the other two accused violating her .

 He said that when he saw this incident , he got scared and went back to sleep and in the morning , he found his grandfather dead and mother burnt and dead . On having the glimpse of this , he again slept inside the house . His uncle came and took them to his father’s village . The trial court witnessed his statement and observed that the child was pausing in between and seemed to be tutored by someone as  there was sufficient time to tutor him .

 The dock identification was not given importance by the trial court in the non-attendance of any test identification parade . The High Court depended on the child witness and stated that it may happen that the father was busy in taking care of the dead bodies and draw away his attention from interrogating his children . Children of young age are been kept away from the dead body and were not questioned immediately . 

• POORAN SINGH 

The High Court depended on the judicial confession made by the accused Pooran Singh against the appellants . While he was giving his statement , he was been hand cuffed by the police . The magistrate should ensure that no third degree methods should be used by the police to abstract the confession . It should not use any force to extract the confession .

 There shall be a searching agency for the witness in order to ensure that there is no scope of doubt for any type of influence , he should also be secured of protection from any kind of torture or pressure from police in case he declines to make a confessional statement . . In his written statement , he wrote that he was been physically tortured and threatened  by the police to agree for giving a false confession .

 After recording the statement , he was given back to the custody of police . It was held that it is not safe to rely on the confession which was made with pressure and force and shall not be treated as reliable evidence as he has been physically and mentally pressured for giving a judicial confession . 

JUDGEMENT 

The appeal was allowed . The judgment passed by the High Court was not justified in reversing the judgement of the trial court as the statement given by the child witness can be manipulated . He is just 6 years old and can be easily tutored by others . His father also forgot to interrogate him and therefore , there was time between the date of the incident and the date of deposition . The accused Pooran Singh was under the custody of the police and was threatened and pressurised by the police to give false narratives .

Various information was recovered as evidence from the house like the information of the accused , domestic papers and valuables belonging to the house were found . The trial court completely denied the evidence of the recovery of articles . It held that the judicial confession even though withdrawn and the recovery of articles from the accused belong to the accused are probative pieces of evidence of the child witness . 

It held that the offence claimed against the accused has been proved beyond doubt. The evidence was rejected and held unreliable by the trial court . The High Court had not given apt and persuasive reasons to upside the verdict of the trial court .The court considered the child a suitable witness but a child particularly at such a age who is unable to form a proper opinion about the incident because of immaturity of understanding.  

Therefore , the High Court was not able to prove the statements. Thereby , the judgement given by the trial court will be maintained . 

REFERENCES 

https://indiankanoon.org

Written by JIYA MONGIA ( MAHARAJA AGRASEN INSITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES ), an intern under legal vidhiya.