TMI Blog1978 (8) TMI 241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were also convicted under section 364 read with section 34 and section 120-B I.P.C. and section 394 read with section 34 and section 120-B I.P.C. and each of them were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years under each count. Boota Singh was further convicted of the offence under section 419, I.P.C. and section 471 read with section 465 T.P.C. and section 47] read with section 466 T.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years, one year and four years respectively. As three of the respondents, viz., Boota Singh, Trilok Singh and Asa Singh were sentenced to death, the Sessions Judge made a reference to the High Court of Allahabad for confirmation of the sentence of death. The respondents who have been convicted by the Sessions Judge also filed appeals against their convictions and sentences. The appeal was heard by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court which reversed the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and acquitted all the respondents of the charges framed against them. Thereafter. the State of U.P. preferred an appeal to this Court and after special leave was granted by this Court the appeal has been placed before us for hearing. At the ti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervice. Boota Singh respondent went in and approached Inder Singh P.W. 2 and introduced himself as K. Sharma of the Indian Army and gave out that he was on a round for recruiting girls for the military and for this purpose he needed the taxi on hire. The bargain was finally struck and Inder Singh P.W.2 agreed to provide Boota Singh with his taxi at the rate of ₹ 30 per day. Boota Singh thereafter executed a document Ex. Ka-4 in proof of the receipt of the car and paid ₹ 50/- as advance. Lal Singh, the deceased son of Inder Singh was the driver of the taxi and in fact the virtual owner of the taxi. The taxi given to Boota Singh bore number UPS-6679. Inder Singh directed Lal Singh to take the taxi with Boota Singh and his companions. Raghubir Singh and Trilok Singh boarded the taxi when it reached the petrol pump. From Dehra Dun the taxi came to Doiwala where the party of Boota Singh was joined by Asa Singh. Thereafter all the members of the party took their meals at the hotel of Khem Singh P.W. 5 and Boota Singh had purchased a cake of soap from the shop of Jaidev Singh P.W. 7. Thus all the four respondents were last seen together at Doiwala by P.W.s S and 7. From there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arted in the course of which the blanket of deceased Lal Singh was recovered from the forest and the respondent Boota Singh soon after his arrest made the confession Ex. Ka-81 before a Magistrate making a clean breast of the whole affair. Subsequently, the respondents were identified by some of the witnesses at T.I. parades held at Nainital and Dehra Dun. After the usual investigation, the Police submitted a charge against all the four respondents on the basis of which they were committed to the Court of SESSIONS and convicted and sentenced LI indicated above. The central evidence against the respondents consists of the confessional statement made by Boota Singh on 16th March, 1964 before Mr. M. L. Sharma, Magistrate First-class who has been examined as P.W 23 and in the confession Boota Singh appears to have made a clean breast of the entire story detailing the various parts played by him and his other companions. The confession was sought to be corroborated by a large number of circumstances proved by the prosecution at the trial and which will be discussed hereafter. In fact, the motive for the murder of the deceased has been clearly indicated in the confession and was also c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs for reflection. The High Court conjectures that the respondent Boota Singh must have been sent to police custody after being produced before the Magistrate on 16th March at .30 p.m. his finding of the High Court is contrary to the evidence of the Magistrate who clearly deposed thus:- At the time when the statement was recorded, the accused was produced by the Court Moharrir. No Sub- Inspector was present there. There was no constable as well. When the Court Moharrir came with the accused the accused was already in handcuffs. I got the same removed when he came inside. The Moharrir went outside with the handcuffs . This statement clearly shows that after 1.30 p.m. respondent Boota Singh was in the custody of the Court Moharrir and it was from his custody that the respondent Boota Singh was produced before the Magistrate at 4.45 p.m. for recording the confession. For these reasons, therefore, the High Court was not justified in rejecting the confession or doubting its veracity on the supposed belief that the respondent Boota Singh was in police custody from the time he was produced before the Magistrate to the time when the statement was recorded. Another ground on which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 22 stated thus :- Bikram Singh, Sub-Inspector and Kundan Lal Sharma, C.I.D. Inspector, took us to P.S. Dalanwala and locked up us separately from each other. They beat me severely and pressed and threatened me that if I did not make a statement as desired by them, they would kill me. There they beat me to unconsciousness and then brought me and then pressed me to make a statement. I was not at all in my senses, when they brought me back to the lock-up, the court had departed. This statement was completely falsified by the circumstances indicated above yet Boota Singh gave a complete go by to this plea taken by him before the committing Magistrate and in his statement before the Sessions Judge he categorically stated that he made no statement before the Magistrate, but his signature was taken on a blank paper which was converted into a confession. In answer to question No. 21 regarding the confession having been read out to the respondent Boota Singh, he stated thus:- No I did not make any statement. He obtained my signature on a blank paper Thus, the two statements were wholly inconsistent with each other and conclusively show that the stand taken by the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd on. The respondent then goes on to state that Trilok Singh wanted to purchase land at Chidderwala and had paid ₹ 1200/- as earnest money to Hans Raj. The whole transaction was for ₹ 16,000/- or ₹ 17,000/-? but as the purchaser was short of money. Asa Singh. Trilok Singh, Raghubir Singh and Gopi Goojar along with Boota Singh conspired together to bring some taxi from Dehra Dun and sell the same, so that the balance of the consideration money for the land might be paid and the sale- deed got registered. This really constituted the motive for the incident leading to the murder of the deceased, Lal Singh. The gist of the motive mentioned in the confession is clearly corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 16 Ram Lal who has deposed that during the time of the occurrence Asa Singh and his brother Bal Singh wanted to purchase his land and the transaction was settled at the rate of ₹ 225 per bigha, and 68 bighas of land were to be sold. The purchasers had given an advance of ₹ 3200/- which was to be forfeited if the balance of the amount was not paid. The witness further stated that as the balance of the amount was eventually not paid, the vendor did not deli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us. Boota Singh went to the Punjab Taxi Stand and had a talk with Inder Singh for hiring a taxi and was ultimately successful in persuading Inder Singh to give the taxi to him on hire at the rate of ₹ 30/- per day. The respondent further mentioned in the confession that he paid an advance of ₹ 50/- and gave a receipt to Inder Singh. Thereafter, three of them proceeded to Doiwala in the taxi hired by Boota Singh which was driven by the deceased Lal Singh who was the son of Inder Singh. This part of the confessional statement is fully corroborated not only by oral but also by documentary evidence. In the first place, there is Exhibit Ka-4 which is a receipt granted by the respondent Boota Singh to Inder Singh for the advance of ₹ 50/- which he had paid to Inder Singh for hiring the taxi. The receipt appears to have been signed by the respondent as K. Sharma. The signature of the Respondent was sent to the expert along with his admitted specimen signatures and the expert P.W. 32 Shiv Ram Singh found that it completely tallied with the signature of the respondent Boota Singh. The expert had marked the signature of the respondent Boota Singh at Exhibit Ka-4 as S-3894. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent or not, there was sufficient proof of the execution of Exhibit Ka-4. For these reasons, therefore, we are not in a position to support the finding of the High Court that Exhibit Ka-4 was not a genuine document. Thus, Exhibit Ka-4 being proved must be held to the strongest possible circumstance to corroborate the confession of Boota Singh regarding the first stage of the prosecution case, namely, the hiring of the taxi. Apart from Exhibit Ka-4 there is independent and reliable evidence to show that Boota Singh and others had approached P.W. 2 Inder Singh for living the taxi on hire to respondent Boota Singh and the deal was struck as a result of which ₹ 50/- was paid in advance. In this connection the witnesses examined by the prosecution arc P.W. 2 Inder Singh, P.W. 8 Pritam Singh and P.W. 14 Jagir Singh. At a T.I. parade held on 9-3-1964 at Dehra Dun Boota Singh was identified by P.W. 2 Inder Singh and P.W. 14 Jagir Singh as the person who had approached him for taking the taxi on hire. At the same parade the respondent Trilok Singh was identified by P.W. 8 Pritam Singh and P.W. 14 Jagir Singh. All these witnesses were undoubtedly independent witnesses and were not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h categorically stated thus:- I arrested Boota Singh and Trilok Singh accused at Moonak in connection with that case. I made them Bapurdah and told them that they were to Be identified. I shut Both of them at P.S. Moonak in a Bapurdah state . (Emphasis ours) . The evidence of these two witnesses clearly shows that every possible precaution was taken to keep the respondent Bapurdah throughout and even at the Police Station Moonak so that the respondent may not be able to see the witnesses. Similarly, P.W. 59 Vikram Singh clearly stated that although he found Boota Singh and Trilok Singh at P.S. Moonak they were in police custody and they were Bapurdah. In the face of this clear and specific evidence where was the question for the High Court to conjecture or speculate that the witness must have been shown to the. respondent at the police station Moonak. the High Court ought to have decided this question on the direct evidence of the witnesses concerned rather than on pure surmises and conjectures. The High Court particularly relied on the evidence of P.W. 3 Amir Ahmad who had stated that he had arrested the respondent Asa Singh on 6-1-1964 and taken him to police station Da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the admission made by this witness it is extremely doubtful if the witness in fact had arrested Asa Singh and his entire story appears to be a pure fabrication. For these reasons, therefore, the High Court was not at all justified in relying on the evidence of P.W. 3 at its face value. Reliance was also placed on the evidence of P.W. 27 Mahendra Singh who states thus: On 6-1-64 S.O. Vikram Singh Head Constable Amir. Ahmad, Constables Raja Ram, Pritam Singh, Tej Ram, Mathma Singh and I reached Manak. There was none from the public from us. We started from Dehradun on 8-1-64. I do not remember the time when we started from there. We reached Mannak in the Right of 8th and 9th. We did not go to Police Station Manak. We stayed at Mannak in the night of 8th and 9th. We had gone there to arrest Boota Singh and others . The High Court appears to have made much of the alleged admission of the witness in the case that P.W. 3 Pritam Singh had accompanied the police party to Moonak where Boota Singh was arrested, and there fore, there is a possibility that Pritam Singh might have been shown to Boota Singh. In the first place, the witness says nothing of the sort and the High Court a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly lead to the accentuation of the difficulties of honest investigating officers and truthful witnesses. The Full Bench answered the questions as follows:- (1 ) It is not necessary that entry should be made in the various police records of the precautions that were taken for keeping the accused persons ba- parda while under police custody. (2) It is also not necessary to specify in the warrant of commitment of the accused when he is sent to judicial custody that he is to be kept ba-parda till The identification parade takes place, nor it is necessary to specify the precautions that the jail authorities are to take for keeping the accused ba- parda. (3) It is also not necessary that entries should be made in the jail records for keeping the accused ba- parda while he is in the judicial lock up. In the instant case we have already pointed out that there is positive and definite evidence that the respondent was kept ba-parda wherever he was. Finally, the High Court relied on the circumstance that Boota Singh was taken from Moonak to Sangrur and thence to Delhi for a T.I. parade but the T.I. parade ultimately never took place. In this connection, the High Court relies ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pe of evidence and should be closely scrutinised before reliance is placed on it. The High Court observed as follows:- There can be no two opinions about the fact that the evidence of identification is a very weak type of evidence and should be closely scrutinised before reliance is placed on it. Reliance can in this connection be also made to the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Budh Sen and Anr. v. State of U.P. ( (1) A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1321. ) In support of its view the High Court relied on a decision of this Court in Budh Sen Anr. v. State of U.P. (supra). We feel that the High Court has completely misdirected itself on this point. In the first place, the decision of this Court relied upon by the High Court does not at all apply to the facts of the present case. In Budh Sen Anr. v. State of V.P. (supra) what was held by this Court was that where an accused is not known to the witness from before and there is no T.I. parade, but the witness identifies the accused for the first time in court suck an identification is valueless. In this connection, this Court has observed as follows:- As a general rule, the substantive evidence of a witness is a statement made in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e with the High Court that the evidence of identification of these witnesses is a weak type of evidence. We also disapprove the universal rule of application laid down by the High Court that the evidence of identification is a weak type of evidence. For the reasons given above we see no reasons to distrust the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 8 and 14 arid we hold that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent Boota Singh had approached Inder Singh for hiring the taxi and Inder Singh allowed Boota Singh to take the taxi along with his son Lal Singh, deceased. In view of the fact that Inder Singh and Jagir Singh identified Boota Singh at T. I. Parade which has been proved by Magistrate M. L. Sharma, P.W. 23 there was no reason to distrust the evidence of identification of these two witnesses as against Boota Singh. For the same reasons there was no reason to distrust the evidence of P.W. 8 Pritam Singh and P.W. 14 Jagir Singh when they had identified the respondent Trilok Singh at a r. 1. parade and also in court. The finding of the High Court on this point is, therefore, wholly incorrect both in law and on facts. Thus, the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses ful ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p. These men took food at my shop. Dola Singh is called Jaideo Singh as well. He is present in the Court. He came to take his tea when these men were eating their food. Then he went back to his shop out of these men Trilok Singh and Asa Singh accused pre sent in Court were known to me from before. The car belonged to Lal Singh. He too was known to me from before. After taking their food these four men along with Lal Singh went away by the car towards Rishikesh. Out of those four men, two men were not known to me . In his statement in court the witness categorically stated that the statement he had made before the committing court was correct. But in cross examination he made out a new case that the statement before the committing court was made at the instance of the police. Indeed, if it was so, he would have at once complained to the committing Magistrate. Similarly, P. W. 7 Jaideo Singh completely resiled from his statement which he made before the committing court which was also transferred under section 288 Cr. P.C. Before the Committing Court the witness had stated that he had gone to take tea in the hotel of Khem Singh and found Asa Singh. Trilok Singh and Lal Singh were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me is true. If there be a case- and there is such infinite variety in facts and circumstances of the cases coming before the courts that it cannot be dogmatically said that there can never be such a case-where even without such extrinsic support the Judge of facts after bearing in mind the intrinsic weakness of the evidence, in that two different statements on oath have been made, is satisfied that the evidence is true and can be safely relied upon, the Judge will be failing in his duty not to do so. This case was followed in a later decision of this Court in Har Prasad Ors. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh([1971] 3 S.C.C. 455). Applying the dictum laid down by this Court to the facts of the present case we find that the following facts are established: 1. P. W. S Khem Singh and P.W. 7 Jaideo Singh fully sup ported the prosecution case regarding the presence of Boota Singh and others at the hotel of Khem Singh, P.W.5. 2. P. W. S Khem Singh has categorically stated that what he had stated before the committing court was true and has thus certified that what he stated in the court was not the correct version, but the correct version was what he stated before the committing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... act is corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 11 Digambar Dutt Bandola and P.W. 13 Bacchu Ram and Exhibit Ka-74. P.W. 11 Digambar Dutt Bandola states in his evidence that in December, 1963 he was a clerk at the Song Bridge, Doiwala and was in charge of the register of the Toll Barrier. The witness proves the entry at page 6 of the register about the passing o'; a Fiat car bearing No. UPS-6679 going from Dehra Dun to Rishikesh at 6.00 in the evening. This entry is marked as Exhibit Ka-74. This evidence, therefore, fully corroborates the statement of Boota Singh in his confession that from Doiwala the party proceeded to Chidderwala (which is on way of Rishikesh) and that Gopi had signed the register at one of the forest outposts which is proved by Exhibit Ka-74. It would thus be clear that up to this spot original number of the Fiat car, viz., UPS-6679 was retained, because the evidence shows that the number was changed after the murder of Lal Singh. The High Court has not at all considered the effect of this document nor has it referred to the evidence of P.W. 11 Digamber Dutt Bandola, who is an independent witness. In fact, as pointed out by us, the High Court has made a wrong ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the respondents took off the clothes of the deceased and set fire to them and left the dead body in the same condition. Although there is no direct corroboration of the actual assault on Lal Singh, the circumstantial evidence admitted in the confession and corroborated is a clear pointer to the fact that Lal Singh had accompanied the respondent right from Dehra Dun up to Chidderwala forest where he was murdered. . Thus, the respondents were last seen with Lal Singh before the murder. Therefore, taking the circumstances before and after the murder of Lal Singh, the murder of Lal Singh cannot be explained by any other reasonable hypothesis except the guilt of the respondent. Even the fact that the dead body was left in the condition in the forest itself is corroborated by the discovery of the skeleton of the deceased Lal Singh from the forest, his clothes which have been clearly found by the Session Judge as belonging to the deceased Lal Singh and this finding has not been displaced by the High Court. We shall deal with this aspect in greater detail when we take up the question of corpus delecti which has been argued with great vehemence by Mr. Mulla. At the moment we are confin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e High Court. It may also be mentioned here that not only did the specimen signature of respondent Boota Singh on Exhibit Ka-53 tally with his signature in the register Exhibit Ka-11 but even the words 'UPM-3236' written by him have been found by the expert to be in the writing of respondent Boota Singh. Thus, it is established by unimpeachable evidence that the respondent Boota Singh not only made the entry in the register Exhibit Ka-11 but also changed the number plate of the car to UPM-3236 with a view to conceal the identity of the car. The scene then shifts to Ambala where, according to the prosecution, Boota Singh accompanied by Raghubir Singh and others went to Ambala and got the car insured. P.W. 27 Balwant Singh Bhalla deposes that on 11.12.63 a man filled up the insurance form Exhibit Ka-29 and affixed the signatures as J.P. Singh, and handed over the same to the witness who was the agent of North India General Insurance Company. A bare look at the form Exhibit Ka-29 clearly shows that the insurance form was filled for a period of one year i.e. from 11.12.63 to 10.12.64. Unfortunately, however, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly pointed out that the prosecu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the respondent tried to get another taxi. It not necessary for us to dwell on this aspect of the matter, because that is the subject matter of another case. The fact however that the respondent was prepared to make a clean breast not only of the facts of the present case but also of the other incident clearly shows that he was speaking the truth exhibiting real sense of penitence flowing from the pricking of his conscience. This part of the confessional statement is fully corroborated by the evidence led by the prosecution which we will discuss hereafter. The respondent Boota Singh has clearly stated in his confession that after going to Bombay he contacted a broker for negotiating the sale of the car. P.W. 9 Anand Singh states that he was plying a taxi at Bombay. On 17.12.63 he met the three persons at National Petrol Pump, Bombay with a 1962 model Fiat car having number plate bear ing number UPM-3236. The witness paid an advance of ₹ 200/- and got a receipt in the name of Nirbhai Ram Narsic Das. The witness further states that of the three persons who met him two were Sardars and one was without a beard. The persons who was without beard gave out his name as J. P. Sing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondent Boota Singh contacted them for sale of the car and had shown the car to them. But as there was some discrepancy in the chassis number and the engine number P.W. 62 Raja Ram Narain Rane became a little suspicious. Both these witnesses identified the respondent Boota Singh at Dehra Dun at a T.I. parade held by P.W. 23 M. L. Sharma as discussed above. Thereafter they identified the respondent Boota Singh both in the committing court and the Sessions Court. P.W. 62 Raja Ram Narain Rane had categorically stated that he had not seen the respondent Boota Singh anywhere in the intervening period i.e. between the time when he visited him at Bombay and the T.I. parade held at Dehra Dun. Similarly, P.W. 9 Anand Singh has also identified the respondent Boota Singh both in the identification parade and in court. In fact P.W. 9 Anand Singh had identified Raghubir Singh also. The evidence of these witnesses fully corroborates the facts stated by the respondent Boota Singh in his confession which have been detailed above. The High Court has made no real attempt to consider the intrinsic evidence of these two independent witnesses which lends full and complete assurance to and pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 2 Inder Singh at Dehra Dun. This fact is proved both by oral and documentary evidence discussed above and a very well reasoned finding on this point has been given by the Sessions Judge which runs thus:- In Ex. Ka-2 agreement entered into between Lal Singh and Jasbir Singh of Auto Linkers Financiers, the particulars of the car are given as Fiat 1100, 1962 Model chassis No. D 950261. These particulars are identical with those of UPM 3236 seized by the Bombay Police. Thus the prosecution has been able to establish that the car seized by the Bombay Police was the one which the accused Boota Singh along with his companions hired from M/s Punjab Taxi service. The learned Sessions Judge has also pointed that the original plate exhibit Ka-51 had been recovered by P.W. 18 Vikram Singh from the Car UPM 3236 and sent to P.W. 26 Shariq Alvi who found that there was tampering with the number of the plate. Brij Kishore of R.T.O's office Bareilly stated that UPM 3236 was a fake number inasmuch as it related to a station wagon belonging to a Junior Government High School, Pakkwara, District Moradabad. Harcharan Singh, Inder Singh and Mahendra Kaur have also identified the car in que ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were fired at the deceased according to the Statement of Boota Singh in his confession, it may be that no shot hit the bone but remained in the flesh which having peeled off, no trace of gun shot injury could ever be found. Therefore, it is not a circumstance to show that there is any real inconsistency between the confessional statement of the respondent Boota Singh and the medical evidence. As regards the injury said to have been inflected by a Gandasa, the same is proved by the circumstantial evidence and the nature of the skeleton or Lal Singh found in the forest. According to the postmortem report, the lower cervical vertebra was separated from the rest . of the skeleton at the level of the joint and the head was found at a distance From the body. This would mean that the head was severed from the body and this could have only been possible if the injury was . inflicted by a Gandasa as the entire flesh had peeled off and traces of the injury had obliterated by passage of time. The skeleton remained in the forest exposed to rain and in these circumstances we could not expect to find any mark of injury on the skeleton the fact however is that the skeleton has been indentified t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er only a very small portion of the clothes were burnt. Another important evidence which clenches the issue was the recovery,- of Exhibit Ka-8 a dry cleaning receipt from the pocket of the coat of Lal Singh which is Exhibit Ka-13. This receipt bears the signature of Lal Singh. P.W. 3 who was the salesman at Dehra Dyeing and Dry Cleaners deposed that on g. 11.63 Lal Singh had given a pant for dry cleaning and had been given receipt Exhibit Ka-8, the duplicate of which was with the dry cleaning shop and it has also been produced and is exhibit Ka-52. This, therefore, completely clinches the issue and shows that the dead body could have been of none else than that of Lal Singh. Mr. Mulla suggested that this receipt may have been introduced by the police in the pocket of the coat during investigation. There is however no evidence to prove this fact. Nothing has been shown why the police officers would have gone to the extent of fabricating the evidence against the respondents. For these reasons, therefore, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the finding of the learned Sessions Judge that the skeleton recovered from The forest was that of Lal Singh and we accordingly overrule t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m Singh has clearly stated that Exhibits Ka-38 to 40 were in the handwriting of Boota Singh. It has also been proved as held by the trial Court that these documents were presented by Boota Singh for the purpose of obtaining registration number from the R.T.O. Bombay in respect of the stolen car. Thus, we fully agree with the finding of the trial Court that the change under section 465/471 and 466/471 I.P.C. has been clearly proved. Apart from this, it has also been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent Boota Singh impersonated as one k. Sharma to Inder Singh and falsely represented to him that he was a military officer in search of recruitment of girls in the Army and on this belief he induced Inder Singh to deliver the taxi to him on hire whereas Boota Singh had no intention whatsoever of returning the car. The intention to cheat Inder Singh by Boota Singh was clearly proved. In these circumstances, the charge under section 419 I.P.C. has also been proved beyond doubt. . The High Court has neither referred to the evidence on those charges nor considered the same but has taken a short course of rejecting the entire prosecution case after finding that the confession was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
