Case- Comment

Case: - Faddi v. State of M.P AIR 1964 SC 1850

Statute: - CrPC- S.162, IEA- SS. 21 & 25
(This is a leave to appeal against the order of the high court of M.P confirming
conviction & sentence of faddi U/S. 302 I.P.C)
Facts: - Jaibai lived with Faddi, after death of her husband, Buddha at Morena.
Jaibai had a son named Gulab aged 11 yrs. He stayed at the house of his
relative named Ramle.
(Relevant fact/ act): - Gulab’s corpse was recovered from a well of a village on
Jan 21, 1963. In the post- mortem report his death was expressed having been
caused within two or three days also due to injury on the skull. The report
mentioned absence of water inside either the lungs/ abdomen/ larynx/ middle
ear.
(Note: - The report ruled out the possibility of Gulab’s dying due to drowning).
Police Investigation Details
Appellant Faddi Lodged FIR stating that on peeping into the well near the
peepul tree on morning of Jan 20, 1962, he found his son lying dead in the
well.
Three persons Ramle, Bhanta and one cyclist were named as accused of the
offence of murdering Gulab.
The above information took the police to the well and to the recovery of the
corpse.
 The name culprits were arrested and remained the lock up for 8 to 11
days.
 In the meantime investigation was taken over by the circle inspector,
from OIC on Jan 26, 1962 upon the orders of S.P and Faddi was
arrested on Jan 27.
 Faddi took the circle inspector to his house and delivered a pair of
shorts of Gulab to him.
Circumstantial evidences
(The case involves conviction on circumstantial evidence in absence of any
direct evidence)
Vital evidences of Circumstance
The following pieces of circumstantial evidences are important to be perused.
1. Faddi went to Ramle’s house on noon, Jan 19 and asked him to send
Gulab with him. Gulab was in the fields by them. After meals Faddi left
suddenly when Shyama arrived & gave a message to Ramle from Gulab’s
mother that Gulab be not sent with any one. Faddi caught hold of Gulab
from the fields forcibly and took him away. One Banwari was with Faddi
at this time.
2. Gulab had not been seen alive subsequent to Faddi’s taking away on Jan
19 afternoon.
Faddi had not been able to give any satisfactory explanation as to how
he and Gulab parted company.
3. Faddi knew the place where Gulab’s corpse lay this statement that he
had seen the corpse floating in the well was untrue as according to the
doctor, the corpse could come up and float in water only after two days
since death. The recovery witness deposed that they could not see the
corpse floating rather it was recovered by use of angles.
4. Faddi had confessed to Jaibai & two other prosecution witnesses about
his killing Gulab.
5. The pair of shorts recovered was the one Gulab was wearing at the time
he was taken away by Faddi.
Note: - (The High Court did not rely on the confession and on the recovery of
the pair of shorts from Faddi. The SC also noted it to be right as the evidence
about confession was discrepant and unconvincing for lack of test
identification and non- examination of accused about Gulab’s shorts.)
Holding of the High Court With respect to Faddi’s committing Gulab’s murder
rested on other circumstances. Sufficient to establish Gulab’s murder. They are
as follows.
1. In his report the appellant admitted his forcibly taking away Gulab from
village Torkheda whereupon, Ramle, Bhanta and Shyamlal threatened
him with life, took out pyjama and Half- part from Gulab’s body and
 taking the boy with them remained sitting on the well. The appellant
kept himself concealed from their view, nearby. He heard the sound of
something being thrown into the well when after the three persons ran
away, but he remained sitting there throughout the night and then
peeping into the well next morning. Observed the corpse of his son in
the well.
2. The S.C considered the above report as a first information report but not
a confessional Statement and noted that the lower courts having
considered the Appellant’s statements found them false as the appellant
could not explain Gulab’s disappearance while he had taken Gulab with
him, as shown by prosecution evidence.
3. The S.C cited the High Court’s consideration of the fact that the
appellant knew where the deceased body was which was not explained
by him as to how he came to know about it. Thus what he had stated in
the report had been considered & found to be untrue. Additionally, his
statement that Gulab was forcibly taken from him by Ramle & others
was untrue as he would have ordinarily gone & taken some action,
without wasting his time in just following those people. Even if he was
interested in following them and heard the sound of something being
thrown inside the well and seen those persons running away, he had no
reason to remain hidden there the whole night. Furthermore, the
appellant’s statement that he observed the dead body floating in the
well was also found to be incorrect by the H.C.
4. The appellant’s contention before the S.C was that FIR was inadmissible
in evidence & should not have been therefore taken on record, was
rejected. The appellant’s reliance on Nisar Ali’s case (SC) (1957) was not
found valid as in Nisar Ali’s case as the FIR was in the nature of a
confession by the maker and as per law a confessional FIR cannot be
used against the maker when he be an accused and necessarily cannot
be used against a co- accused. The supreme Court noted that in Nisar
Ali’s case it had not to determine that a FIR which is not a confession
cannot be used as an admission U/S. 21 IEA or as a relevant statemen
under any other provision of that Act.
Held: - the report of the appellant is not his confessional statement made to a
police officer during investigation S. 25 IEA & S. 162 CrPC. Do not bar its
admissibility as the report is an admission of accused of certain facts having a
bearing on the question how and by Whom Gulab’s murder was committed or
whether appellant’s statements in court denying correctness of certain
statements of prosecution witnesses is correct or not.
Accordingly, it was held by S.C that a FIR not being a confession can be used as
an admission U/S. 21 IEA as a relevant statement under any other provision of
the Act. For reliance, the privy council’s judgement in Dal Singh v. King
Emperor, the Rajasthan High Court’s judgements State v. Balchand in (1960),
State of Rajasthan v. Shiv Singh (1962) and Allahabad High Court’s judgement
in Allahdia v. State (1959) were cited.
Finally, the court held that the circumstances held established by the H.C. are
sufficient to reach the conclusion that Gulab was murdered by appellant who
was the last person in whose company deceased was seen alive and who knew
where the dead body lay and who gave untrue explanation about his knowing
it in the report lodged by him and gave no explanation in the court as to how
he separated from the deceased.
Order: - Appeal dismissed.