Evidence Law

Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab

AIR 1957 SC 637

Facts

Harbans Singh, Sarwan Singh, Gurdial Singh and Banta Singh were alleged to have murdered Gurdev Singh.
Gurdev Singh suffered:
sixty-nine incised wounds;
two blunt-force injuries.
Banta Singh was initially an accused but later received a pardon and became an approver.
He gave evidence describing:
the planning;
weapons;
roles of the participants;
manner of attack.
His first police statement, however, differed materially from his later evidence.
In the first statement:
he did not implicate Harbans Singh in the actual killing;
his account of weapons and roles differed.
He later changed his account shortly before receiving pardon.
Sarwan Singh also made a confession before a Magistrate.
He had remained in police custody for several days.
When produced before the Magistrate:
he was given only about thirty minutes for reflection;
injuries were visible on his body;
the Magistrate did not adequately inquire into them;
police officers remained nearby.
The trial court convicted the accused.
The High Court acquitted Gurdial Singh but confirmed the convictions of Harbans Singh and Sarwan Singh.
They appealed to the Supreme Court.

What tests must an approver’s evidence satisfy?
Whether corroboration can rescue testimony that is itself fundamentally unreliable.
Whether Sarwan Singh’s confession was voluntary and true.
Whether the remaining circumstantial evidence was sufficient.

An approver’s testimony must satisfy a double test:
first, the approver must be a reliable witness;
second, the reliable testimony must receive sufficient independent corroboration in material particulars.
The court must not begin with corroboration while ignoring the witness’s basic credibility.
If the approver is wholly unreliable, corroboration becomes irrelevant.
Corroboration need not prove the complete prosecution case.
It must nevertheless:
concern material features;
connect the particular accused with the offence.
Recording a confession under Section 164 CrPC is a solemn judicial act.
The Magistrate must:
remove police influence;
warn the accused;
provide adequate reflection time;
ensure voluntariness;
consider allegations or signs of coercion.
Even a voluntary confession must separately be tested for truth.
A court must not assume that a voluntary confession is automatically true.

The approver’s first and later accounts were not minor variations.
They were directly inconsistent regarding:
whether Harbans Singh participated;
which weapons were carried;
who delivered particular blows.
His later improvement occurred shortly before he received pardon.
This created a serious possibility that he modified the story to secure favourable treatment.
The Court concluded that Banta Singh had little regard for truth.
Once he failed the first test of reliability, the court could not use:
recoveries;
bloodstained clothes;
Sarwan Singh’s confession, merely to corroborate him.
Suspicious circumstances against Harbans Singh could not independently establish murder.
Sarwan Singh’s confession was also unsafe.
He had spent several days in police custody without convincing explanation.
Thirty minutes was inadequate to free his mind from police influence.
The Magistrate did not investigate:
the injuries;
possible pressure;
the effect of continued custody.
Ordinarily, the Court suggested that an accused should receive about twenty-four hours for reflection, though the necessary time depends upon circumstances.
The confession also conflicted with:
medical evidence;
the approver’s account;
the proven injuries.
The lower courts had improperly assumed truth after finding voluntariness.
Once the approver evidence and confession were removed, the remaining circumstances established only suspicion.

The Supreme Court held that the approver was fundamentally unreliable.
His evidence failed the first part of the double test, so the question of corroboration did not arise.
Sarwan Singh’s confession was not proved voluntary or true.
The remaining circumstances were insufficient.
The convictions and death sentences of Harbans Singh and Sarwan Singh were set aside.
The Court emphasised that there is a long distance between a prosecution story that “may be true” and one that “must be true.”