Evidence Law

Nishi Kant Jha v. State of Bihar

AIR 1969 SC 422; (1969) 1 SCC 347

Citation: AIR 1969 SC 422; (1969) 1 SCC 347
Court: Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench)
Date: 2 December 1968
Bench: M. Hidayatullah CJI, J.C. Shah, V. Ramaswami, G.K. Mitter and A.N. Grover JJ.

Facts

Nishi Kant Jha and the deceased, Jai Prakash Dubey, were students.
Jai Prakash was found murdered inside the lavatory of a railway compartment.
His throat had been cut, and several incised injuries were found on his body.
Shortly after the murder, Nishi Kant was seen:
bathing in a river;
washing bloodstained clothes;
carrying bloodstained books and other articles.
He had a knife in his possession.
The knife was capable of causing the injuries found on the deceased.
Human blood was detected on:
his clothes;
shoes;
belt;
books;
knife.
He had only a small superficial injury on his hand which could not explain the large amount of blood on his belongings.
Villagers apprehended him and took him before the village Mukhiya.
Before being handed over to the police, Nishi Kant made and signed a statement before the Mukhiya.
In that statement, he admitted:
travelling in the same compartment as the deceased;
being present during the murder;
jumping from the train.
However, he blamed one Lal Mohan Sharma for the murder and claimed that he merely attempted to stop the attack.
He argued that the statement was inadmissible or, alternatively, that it had to be accepted entirely, including the exculpatory portion.

Issue

Whether the statement made before the Mukhiya was voluntary and admissible.
Whether the court was required to accept the statement as a whole.
Whether the exculpatory portion could be rejected while relying on the admitted presence of the accused.

Rule

An admission made voluntarily to a private person is generally admissible unless excluded by another rule.
A statement is not barred as a police confession where:
it is made before the accused is handed to the police;
the recipient is not acting as a police officer;
no coercion, threat or inducement is proved.
Ordinarily, where the prosecution uses an accused’s statement, it should place the entire statement before the court.
However, the court is not permanently bound by every assertion appearing in it.
It may accept one part and reject another where:
independent evidence supports the inculpatory portion;
the exculpatory portion is inherently improbable;
the explanation is contradicted by proved circumstances.
This differs from allowing the prosecution to arbitrarily suppress an inconvenient part of the statement.
The court must evaluate the whole statement along with the remaining evidence.

Application

The statement was made before Nishi Kant was delivered to the police.
The Mukhiya was not shown to have acted as a police officer or as an agent of the investigating authorities.
No effective suggestion of assault, threat or inducement was put to the persons who apprehended him.
His later claim that he had signed a blank paper was also inconsistent with his claim that a statement was obtained through coercion.
The Court therefore regarded the statement as voluntary.
The Court then examined the exculpatory account involving Lal Mohan Sharma.
That explanation was found inherently improbable because:
no convincing reason was shown why Lal Mohan would murder the deceased;
the alleged killer would not naturally commit the offence before a witness who knew him;
it was unlikely that Lal Mohan would allow Nishi Kant to escape as an eyewitness;
no evidence established Lal Mohan’s presence on the train.
Nishi Kant’s physical condition contradicted his claim that he was injured while attempting to stop the assault.
His superficial wound could not explain the extensive blood on his:
clothes;
footwear;
books;
belt;
knife.
His conduct in washing the articles soon after the murder was also inconsistent with that of an innocent eyewitness.
The admitted portion placing him at the scene was strongly supported by independent evidence.
The false exculpatory portion was contradicted by medical, forensic and circumstantial evidence.
The Court therefore distinguished Palvinder Kaur.
In Palvinder Kaur, the prosecution had no evidence disproving the innocent explanation.
Here, the explanation was demonstrably false and inconsistent with the proved facts.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that the statement before the Mukhiya was voluntary and admissible.
The court was entitled to accept the inculpatory portion and reject the exculpatory portion because the latter was:
inherently improbable;
contradicted by independent evidence;
inconsistent with the accused’s conduct.
The circumstantial evidence, combined with his admitted presence, established his guilt.
His conviction and sentence of life imprisonment were upheld.