Chheria vs Emperor

Edward Chamier, C.J.—The appellant Chheria has been convicted by the Sessions Judge of Chota Nagpur of an offence u/s 118 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years. Five persons including the present appellant were committed for trial to the Court of Session. Four of them were charged with having murdered two men, Lohra and Soma, and the appellant was charged with having abetted the murder of those two men. The case for the prosecution was that all five appellants were hired to murder Lohra and Soma by a man named Indra Singh, between whom and Lohra there had been litigation and quarrels for several years. The prosecution did not charge the appellant with murder because the only evidence which they had against him was his own confession, which even if believed did not show that he was guilty of murder. The evidence for the prosecution showed that Lohra and his servant Soma went on Thursday, September 7th last, to a village called Sanidi to spend the night there. There was a nautch in the house that evening, at which the appellant and two others who have been acquitted were present. A witness named Thuma said that during the nautch he heard Tuila, one of the men who has been acquitted, asking Lohra when he had come to Sanidi and when he was going away. Thuma also says that he saw the appellant Chheria engaged in conversation with Lohra. Then there is the evidence of Bulki, who says that some of the men who have been acquitted asked Lohra in her presence when he was leaving the village and he replied that he had had his meal and was just going to start. This woman also described what she saw at the place where Lohra and Soma were murdered. So far as the present appellant is concerned, the evidence of Thuma and Bulki is the only evidence in the case outside the appellant''s own confession. The confession was made on Tuesday September 19th and was retracted by him on November 19th in the Magistrate''s Court. In the Court of Session the appellant said that he did not remember having made any such statement. The confession is to the effect that Indra hired or attempted to hire the appellant and the men who have been acquitted to murder Lohra. The appellant represents himself as having been throughout unwilling to take part in it and he says in fact that he took no part in it. The Sessions Judge on an examination of the confession has come to the conclusion, and I agree with him, that upon the confession, even if it is accepted as absolutely true, the applicant cannot be convicted of having abetted the murder of Lohra and Soma. As already stated, the appellant has been convicted u/s 118, that is, of concealing a design to commit an offence punishable by death or transportation for life. He was never asked to plead to such a charge, but it may be that the Sessions Judge is right in saying that an offence u/s 118, Indian Penal Code, is a minor offence within the meaning of Section 238, Code of Criminal Procedure, compared with an offence u/s 302 read with Section 199 of the Indian Penal Code. I do not lay stress upon this because, in my opinion, the conviction cannot stand. It appears to me that the evidence of Thuma and Bulki, which is supposed to afford sufficient corroboration of this retracted confession, really affords no corroboration whatever. It does not corroborate the confession on any vital point in the case. Build''s evidence, if true, merely shows that the account of the murder given in the confession is not inconsistent with what was found on the spot when the bodies were discovered. The evidence of Thuma merely shows that the appellant had some conversation with Lohra on the day before the murder. That is not the sort of corroboration that is required in a case of this kind, The confession was not made until the Police enquiry had been in progress for several days and the making of the confession may have been prompted by various motives. It is seldom safe to accept an uncorroborated confession. In my opinion it would be most unsafe to confirm the conviction in the present case. The appellant is described by the Sessions Judge as a weak, wretched creature. Such a man is exposed to all kinds of influences and could easily be prevailed upon to make a confession on a promise that he would be made a witness in the case. I am not satisfied that the appellant was concerned in this murder. I would allow this appeal, set aside the conviction and direct that the appellant be released.

Sharfuddin, J.

I agree.