STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS SINGHARA SINGH AND OTHERS

CASE NAME : STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS SINGHARA SINGH AND OTHERS

EQUIVALENT CITATION : 1963 AIR 358 , 1964 SCR (4) 485

DATE OF JUDGEMENT : 16-08-1963

COURT : ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

CASE NO. : CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 31 OF 1962

PETITIONER : STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

RESPONDENT: SINGHARA SINGH AND OTHERS

BENCH : A.K. SARKAR M. HIDAYATULLAH J C SHAH

FACTS OF THE CASE 

. Raja Ram, a shopkeeper in Afzalgunj in the state of Uttar Pradesh was shot dead in his shop on the 20th Day of March in 1959. 

. Seven persons including the three respondents Singhara Singh, Bir Singh, Tega Singh were present and prosecuted for murder of Mr. Raja Ram. 

.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.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.. Tega Singh was sentenced for life whereas Mr. Singhara Singh and Bir Singh were sentenced to death. Moreover, the other four accused were acquitted. 

. The respondents appealed from the conviction to the High Court at Allahabad and the State from the acquittal. The High Court had also before it the usual reference for Confirmation of the sentences of death. The High Court allowed the appeals of the respondents, dismissed the appeal of the State and rejected the reference. The State has now filed this appeal against the judgement of the High Court by special leave. This Court however granted the leave only so 

as far as the judgement of the High Court concerned the three respondents. We are not, therefore, concerned with the other accessed persons and the order acquitting them is no more in question. 

. Aggrieved by the same, the state filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India under Article 136 i.e. SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION .

RELEVANT SECTIONS 

1) SECTION 164 OF CRPC – Recording of Confession and Statement by Magistrate in the course of investigation . 

2) SECTION 302 OF IPC – Punishment for murder . 

3) SECTION 159 OF EVIDENCE ACT – Refreshing memory . When a witness may use a copy of a document to refresh memory . 

ISSUES RAISED 

Whether the oral evidence given by the accused to the magistrate who has recorded the confessions is admissible in a court of law or not ? 

CONTENTION OF PETITIONER 

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.

CONTENTION OF RESPONDENTS 

1. The counsels for the petitioners contended 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.evidence with which this case is concerned was given by a learned magistrate, Mr. Dixit, of confessions of guilt made to him by the respondents and purported to have been recorded by him under sec.164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 

S. 164 (1) Any Presidency Magistrate, any Magistrate of the first class and any Magistrate of the second class specially empowered in this behalf by the State Govt- may, if he is not a police-officer record any statement or confession made to him in the course of an investigation under this Chapter or under any other law for the time being in force or at any time afterwards before the commencement of the inquiry or trial. 

(2) Such statements shall be recorded in such of the manners hereinafter prescribed for recording evidence as is, in his opinion, best fitted for the circumstances of the case. Such confessions shall be recorded and signed in the manner provided in sec.164, and such statements or confessions shall then be forwarded to the Magistrate by whom the case is to be inquired into or tried. 

(3) A Magistrate shall, before recording any such confession, explain to the person making it that he is not bound to make a confession and that if he does so it may be used as evidence against him and no Magistrate shall record any such confession unless, upon questioning the person making it, he has reason to believe that it was made voluntarily; and, when he records any confession, he shall make a memorandum at the foot of such record to the following effect: 

2. They further contended that the Section 164’s object was to provide evidence being available to the prosecution but keeping in view the shield and interest of the suspect. 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 had recorded under Section 164 CrPC. 

3. 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 evidence of such magistrates. 

4.The respondents appealed from the conviction to the High Court at Allahabad and the State from the acquittal. The High Court had also before it the usual reference for Confirmation of the sentences of death. The High Court allowed the appeals of the respondents, dismissed the appeal of the State and rejected the reference. The State has now filed this appeal against the judgement of the High Court by special leave. This Court however granted the leave only so 

far as the judgement of the High Court concerned the three respondents. We are not, therefore, concerned with the other accessed persons and the order acquitting them is no more in question. 

JUDGEMENT 

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

1. The court came to the conclusion that the principles of Nazir Ahmed Case covered 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 are 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 statute 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. 

BHUBONI SAHU VS THE KING (3) showed that the admission made in the statement recorded under SECTION 164 could not be used against an accused person as substantive evidence of the fact stated. The judicial Committee pointed out that “In these cases the Board was considering whether a statement made by a witness under SECTION 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could be used against the accused as substantive evidence of the facts stated, and it was held that such a statement could not be used in that way.” 

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 a magistrate could not furnish oral evidence upon the confession given by the accused to him under Sec 164 in the interest of equity. Hence the appeal fails and is dismissed.

written by ADITYA SINGH, Shri ramswaroop memorial university