Bhagwan singh

v/s
State of MP
(Criminal appeal no. 789 of
2002)

Submitted to: Submitted by:

Dr. Pushpinder Kaur Dishu Kumar
Roll No. 236/18
B Com LLb ©
5th Semester
Characters

Petitioner: Bhagwan Singh & Ors

Respondent: State of M.P.

Date of judgement: 23/01/2003

Bench: S. Rajendra Babu , D. M. Dharmadhikari & G.P.

Mathur.
Sections Involved
 Section 302-Punishment for murder
 .—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or
1[imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.

 Section 396-Dacoity with murder

If any one of five or more persons, who are conjointly committing
dacoity, commits murder in so committing dacoity, every one of
those persons shall be punished with death, or 1[imprisonment for
life], or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten
years, and shall also be liable to fine.
 Sections involved

• Section 460-  All persons jointly concerned in lurking

house-trespass or house-breaking by night punishable
where death or grievous hurt caused by one of them.—
If, at the time of the committing of lurking house-trespass by night
or house-breaking by night, any person guilty of such offence shall
voluntarily cause or attempt to cause death or grievous hurt to any
person, every person jointly concerned in committing such lurking
house-trespass by night or house-breaking by night, shall be
punished with 1[im­prisonment for life], or with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and
shall also be liable to fine.
 Sections involved

•Section 404- Dishonest misappropriation of property

possessed by deceased person at the time of his death.—
Whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use
property, knowing that such property was in the possession of a
deceased person at the time of that person’s decease, and has not
since been in the posses­sion of any person legally entitled to such
possession, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall
also be liable to fine; and if the offender at the time of such
person’s decease was employed by him as a clerk or servant, the
imprisonment may extend to seven years.
Introduction

In the Present Case of Bhagwan Singh & Ors v/s State Of M P,

A judicial confession is that confession which is made by an
accused before a Magistrate or some court in some judicial
proceedings.
It is admissible as evidence only if it is made with true intentions;
it is voluntary, deliberate and clearly proved. In the present case,
the Supreme Court held that a judicial confession which is
involuntary, unreliable cannot be admitted as an evidence in the
case.
The court also held that held that it is dangerous to depend on a
shaky testimony of a child witness who can be easily tutored in
the period between the date of incident and the date of his
deposition.
Facts
 The facts of the case state that it was alleged that on the night of
28th and 29th February, 1984 the three appellants entered the house
of deceased Mata Prasad and killed him and his daughter Munni
Devi.

 The conviction order passed by High Court was based mainly on the
evidence of only a child eye-witness Arvind Kumar who was also in
the house

 He made a statement to the police and named three appellants and

said that he saw them killing his grandfather and his mother (Munni
Devi). But, the three appellants were not arrested immediately, but
with some delay and there is no explanation for this delay.
•Moreover, the maternal uncle of the child was the first person to
meet child witness after the incident. If the child had seen the incident
then the uncle would have been the first person to whom the child
would have disclosed the incident.

•However, the prosecution omitted admitting the uncle as their

witness. The child neither disclosed about the incident to his father.
The trial Judge recorded the demeanor of the child witness that he
was pausing and sometimes faultering while deposing and did not
seem to understand few questions put to him.

•The trial Judge, therefore, held that it would be dangerous to depend

on such shaky testimony of a child witness who could have been
tutored in the period between the date of incident and the date of his
deposition.
• There were other circumstances too which also made the
evidence of the child witness highly unreliable. Also, the
judicial confession made by acquitted accused Pooran Singh
to the Judicial Magistrate was also proved to be involuntary
and unreliable as he was in police custody immediately before
making the confession
Issues and facts of law
 Whether the appellants are guilty for the offences mentioned under section
302, 396, 460 and 404 of IPC?
 Judgement
 The appeal was allowed. The Supreme Court set aside the
impugned judgment of conviction and sentence made by the High
Court dated 11/3/2002 and the judgment of acquittal dated
06/9/1985 made by the trial court was maintained.
 It is admissible as evidence only if it is made with true intentions; it
is voluntary, deliberate and clearly proved. In the present case, the
Supreme Court held that a judicial confession which is involuntary,
unreliable cannot be admitted as an evidence in the case.
 The court also held that held that it is dangerous to depend on a
shaky testimony of a child witness who can be easily tutored in the
period between the date of incident and the date of his deposition.
 Latest case laws

1.Sheo Chandra Paswan vs State Of Bihar (2019)

.

It is admitted case of the prosecution that the alleged occurrence took place at
1.00 A.M. and the deceased was taken to hospital at 2 A.M.. Furthermore, P.W. 6 has
admitted that he reached at the place of occurrence at 6.00 A.M. having got information of
dacoity. P.W. 4 has also admitted that having got information of daocity and murder of one
person he had made Sanha entry. P.W. 4 has also admitted that he when reached at the
place of occurrence, he met P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 and as per disclosure and identification of
P.W. 3 and P.W. 4, he inspected the place of occurrence but it is surprising enough that he
did not record the statement of P.W. 3 and P.W. 4, particularly, in the circumstance, when
P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 were present over the place of occurrence and they were competent to
disclose about the alleged occurrence as both the aforesaid witnesses claimed themselves
to be eye witnesses. P.W. 6 has not explained the reason of not recording the statement of
P.W. 3 and P.W. 4, at the place of occurrence and as to why he chose to go to Jandaha
Hospital for recording the fard-e-beyan of deceased-informant, who, Patna High Court CR.
APP (DB) No.531 of 1994 dt.02-04-2019 admittedly, had sustained serious firearm injury.
2) Inder Puri vs State Of Rajasthan (2020)

Lurking house trespass or house-breaking have another aggravated

variation if it is committed between sun set and sun rise. If
lurking house trespass and house breaking by night are committed after
having made preparation for causing hurt or assault or wrongful restraint
or patting any person into fear then the punishment provided is 14 years
which is under Section 458 IPC
 In the present case, after criminal trespass, the petitioners caused
grievous hurt to the complainant. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court,
during the period the house-breaking lasts if the trespasser causes
grievous hurt to any person or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt
the provisions of Section 459 of the Penal Code will be attracted. Thus, in
the process of making an entry into a house if the trespasser causes
grievous hurt Section 459, Penal Code is attracted which is not in the
present case.
Thank you