Skip to content


State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Dayaram Hemraj - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 252 of 1975
Judge
Reported inAIR1981SC2007; 1981CriLJ1688; 1981(Supp)SCC14
AppellantState of Madhya Pradesh
RespondentDayaram Hemraj
Excerpt:
- section 13=b: [dr. arijit pasayat & asok kumar ganguly,jj] divorce by mutual consent -various disputes relating to matrimonial discord pending in courts - parties arrived at settlement - decree of divorce by mutual consent passed - all pending proceedings amongst them were quashed. - the high court has noticed several discrepancies regarding the persons to whom the confession was made, the occasions when the confession was made and what precisely was said by the accused......to have been made by the accused to p. ws. 1, 7 and 10 and a judicial confession recorded by the learned magistrate. the high court reject-ed both the confessions. we think that the high court did so for proper reasons. the confession recorded by the magistrate was recorded in the form of questions and answers. the record shows that he was virtually cross-examined and whatever he said was in answer to leading questions put by the learned magistrate. we think that the confession was rightly excluded by the high court. the extra-judicial confession said to have been made by the accused to p. ws. 1, 7 and 10 does not also inspire much confidence. the high court has noticed several discrepancies regarding the persons to whom the confession was made, the occasions when the confession was.....
Judgment:

1. The sole respondent in this appeal was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Sagar for the murder of his wife and child. On appeal the High Court of Madhya Pradesh acquitted the respondent of both the charges. The State has preferred this appeal. After having been taken through the relevant record by the learned Counsel for the State and Shri Bhagat, who appeared as amicus curiae for the respondent, we do not think that this is a fit case for interfering with the order of acquittal. The conviction by the trial Court was based on an extra-judicial confession said to have been made by the accused to P. Ws. 1, 7 and 10 and a judicial confession recorded by the learned Magistrate. The High Court reject-ed both the confessions. We think that the High Court did so for proper reasons. The confession recorded by the Magistrate was recorded in the form of questions and answers. The record shows that he was virtually cross-examined and whatever he said was in answer to leading questions put by the learned Magistrate. We think that the confession was rightly excluded by the High Court. The extra-judicial confession said to have been made by the accused to P. Ws. 1, 7 and 10 does not also inspire much confidence. The High Court has noticed several discrepancies regarding the persons to whom the confession was made, the occasions when the confession was made and what precisely was said by the accused. Having regard to these discrepancies, we do not think that we would be justified in taking a different view from the view taken by the High Court when we are dealing wish an order of acquittal.

2. The appeal fails and is dismissed.

3. We are grateful to Shri Bhagat for the assistance rendered by him.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //