T.R. Handa, J.
1. The appellant, Nirmal Singh, was tried for the offence falling under Section 302, I.P.C. for having committed the murder of his wife, Kulwant Kaur. He was found guilty and convicted of the said offence by the trial Court. For this conviction he was awarded sentence of life imprisonment. He filed an appeal in this Court, being Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 1984 against his conviction and sentence. Vide our short order dated 5th September, 1986, we allowed that appeal and ordered acquittal of the appellant. We now proceed to supply our reasons in support of the said order.
2. The facts of this case show that the appellant is a young man of about 21 years. He belongs to village Maina Majari falling within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Bassi, in District Patiala (Punjab). He was married to Smt. Kulwant Kaur deceased on 28-1-1983. The parents of the deceased reside in village Bhadsali in District Una which is at a distance of about 80 to 90 miles from the village of the appellant. After the marriage the couple had been occasionally visiting the parents of the deceased in village Bhadsali. The appellant last visited the place of his in-laws on or about 16th/17th August, 1983. His wife, Smt. Kulwant Kaur, was either already present at the house of her parents or had accompanied him during that visit. The appellant then stayed with his in-laws for four or five days. Thereafter he left that place leaving behind the deceased at the house of her parents. Two or three days later in the evening of 22nd August, 1983, the deceased disappeared from the house of her parents. Efforts to trace her having proved futile, her father, Swaran Singh (P.W. 1), lodged a report with the police on 30th August, 1983. A case under Section 364, I.P.C. was registered with Police Station, Una, vide F.I.R. No. 162 of 1983 on the basis of that report. It would be expedient to reproduce the English transliteration of that report : -
Stated that on 28-1-1983,1 had solemnized the marriage of my daugher, Kulwant Kaur alias Pappi, aged about 17 years with Shri Nirmal Singh son of Ramji Dass, caste Ramgariha, r/o Mainpur Majri, Thana Bassi, District Patiala. Shri Antar Singh r/o Rais-Sari, brother-in-law (Sadu) of my son Kehar Singh got this engagement settled. After marriage, the girl stayed at her in-laws house. In the month of Haar, Nirmal Singh had left my daughter at my house. Thereafter on 17-8-1984 my son-in-law Nirmal Singh again visited our house and left the house after staying for 4 days. It is not known as to in what manner he induced the girl during those four days. On 22-8-83, at about 7 p.m. Kulwant Kaur left the house without informing anybody. On the same evening Nirmal Singh was seen hiding himself by Naresh Kumar s/o Bir Singh, at a distance of one furlong from our house. made search for my daughter on 25th and 26th August, 1983, at the house of Nirmal Singh and at Kharar, but my daughter was not found there. Thereafter on 26-8-1983, Nirmal Singh again met me at Una, and I enquired from him about the whereabouts of Kulwant Kaur, in the presence of Shri Hem Raj Pradhan, but he expressed his ignorance about Kulwant Kaur. Another boy was also accompanying him. The girl had told me earlier that her husband did not like her. Since then her whereabouts are not known till today. So, I fully suspect that Nirmal Singh, my son-in-law has abducted my daughter Kulwant Kaur with intention to kill her. Necessary action be taken.
3. Later on 7-9-1983 it was converted into a case under Section 302, I.P.C. The case which the prosecution endeavoured to establish at the trial and as made out from the evidence adduced on the record was that the appellant after his marriage discovered that his wife, Smt. Kulwant Kaur deceased was suffering from tuberculosis. He got her examined from T.B. Hospital, Patiala, and P.G.I., Chandigarh, for this disease but as per medical opinion obtained by him, the disease was incurable. He was, therefore, keen to get rid of the deceased. He had earlier ventilated his feelings to that effect in his letter Ex. PB addressed by him to his father-in-law, Swaran Singh (P.W. 1). It was either during his stay of four or five days at the place of his in-laws or by somehow sending a message to the deceased later on that the appellant had prevailed upon the deceased to see him in the evening of 22nd August, 1983, at the Cho near her village. It was pursuant to that desire of the appellant, that the deceased left her parental house in the evening of 22nd August, 1983, on the pretext that she was going to meet her husband. Her mother, Smt. Harbans Kaur (P.W. 7), however, dissuaded her from doing so on the plea that the appellant could also come and see her at their house. The deceased, however, despite protest of her mother proceeded towards the Cho. After sometime the mother of the deceased sent her younger daughter, Paramjit Kaur (P.W. 8), in search of the deceased. The deceased, however, could not be traced. Shri Swaran Singh, the father of the deceased, who was then not at home, on being apprised of the fact searched for the deceased at various places including the place of the appellant. After having failed in his efforts, he lodged his report with the Police as referred to above.
4. The further case which the prosecution endeavoured to prove was that in the evening of 22nd August, 1983, Naresh Kumar (P.W. 3), had seen the appellant present at the Cho near village Bhadsali, and the same evening both the appellant and the deceased were seen together boarding a bus from bus stand Bhadsali by Kishan Chand (P.W. 2). The appellant met Swaran Singh (P.W. 1) at Una on 26-8-1986 when on inquiry by the latter he betrayed his ignorance regarding the whereabouts of the deceased. On 6th September, 1983, the appellant voluntarily approached Antar Singh (P.W. 6) at his residence in village Rainsari where he confessed having killed the deceased. Antar Singh (P.W. 6) then took the appellant to Chanan Singh (P.W. 5), the Pradhan of the his Gram Panchayat. The appellant once again confessed his guilt before Chanan Singh (P.W. 5). Antar Singh and Chanan Singh then took the appellant to Police Station, Una, in a bus. On the way they met Hem Raj (P.W. 4), Pradhan Gram Panchayat, Bhadsali at Bus Stand Una. The appellant once again confessed having killed Kulwant Kaur deceased in the presence of Pradhan, Hem Raj (P.W. 4). He was then taken to the Police Station where after interrogation, he was put under arrest. There is also an indication found on the record that the appellant had taken the deceased to Kiratpur where after putting an end to her life he threw her body in the canal. The dead body, however, could not be found and that part of the statement of the appellant was not allowed to be admitted into evidence by the trial Court on the ground that it did not lead to any discovery and was, thus inadmissible.
5. The further case of the prosecution was that while in police custody, the appellant made a disclosure statement on 8th September, 1983, to the effect that he had kept concealed his blood stained pant which was partly washed in his shop at Una and had sold the ear-rings of the deceased for Rs. 432/-with a writing under his own signature to a gold-smith of Kharar and that he could lead the police party to both, the shop at Una and also to a shop at Kharar, and get the pant and ear-rings recovered. Later pursuant to this disclosure statement he got the pant and earrings recovered.
6. The plea of the appellantw as of denial simpliciter. He claimed that he had love and affection for his wife, Kulwant Kaur deceased. He admitted that he came to know after the marriage that she was suffering -from tuberculosis but stated that he got her examined for that purpose at Ambala and also at Chandigarh. He produced X-ray film Ex. Dl in proof of such examination. According to the appellant, it was at the request of his father-in-law that he left the deceased at her parental house for her treatment. He betrayed complete ignorance about the manner in which the deceased disappeared from her parental ho us or to what happened to her thereafter. His further plea was that he was arrested on 31st August, 1983, and his signatures were forcibly obtained on the disclosure statement which he denied to have made. With respect to the letter Ex. PB his plea was that the same was got written from him under coercion while in police custody.
7. It is obvious from the above narration that in the instant case there was no direct evidence available to connect the appellant with the offence of which he stood convicted. In fact there was no direct evidence even to show if the alleged victim, Smt. Kulwant Kaur, was actually dead muchless to show if she met a homicidal death. In the absence of direct evidence the prosecution relied mainly on the evidence of extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by the appellant immediately before his arrest on 6-9-1983. Corroboration to this extra-judicial confession was sought from circumstantial evidence comprising of the following circumstances : -
(i) the appellant visited the house of his in-laws in village Bhadsali on 17-8-1983 and stayed there for four or five days;
(ii) he wrote letter Ex. PB to his father-in-law, Swaran Singh (P.W. 1), lamenting over his fate on account of his marriage and expressing his desire to leave the deceased.
(iii) the appellant was last seen in the company of the deceased on 22nd August, 1983 near the Cho in village Bhadsali by Naresh Kumar (P.W. 3);
(iv) that the appellant and the deceased were seen boarding a bus at Bus Stand Bhadsali together on 22nd August, 1983, by P.W. 2, Krishan Chand;
(v) the deceased expressed her desire to her mother to meet her husband at Cho while leaving her parental house in the evening of 22nd August, 1983, for the last time;
(vi) the deceased never returned to her parental house after she left for the Cho on 22nd August, 1983;
(vii) during four or five days' stay at his in-laws house the appellant had a quarrel with his in-laws;
(viii) On 26th August, 1983, the appellant met his father-in-law, Swaran Singh, at Una and on inquiry by the latter he betrayed his ignorance regarding the whereabouts of the deceased; and
(ix) while in police custody the appellant made a disclosure statement pursuant to which he got recovered the ear-rings of the deceased which she was bearing on her person at the time of leaving her parental house in the evening of 22nd August, 1983.
8. The learned trial Court accepted the prosecution case in its entirety. It found that the appellant had made an extra-judicial confession before Antar Singh (P.W. 6) which he later repeated before Chanan Singh (P.W. 5) and Hem Raj (P.W. 4) before he was taken to the Police Station and arrested on 6th September, 1983. It also found no difficulty in concluding that the various circumstances relied upon by the prosecution and as enumerated above, had been satisfactorily proved. In the opinion of the trial Court the extra-judicial confession of the appellant and the existence of the circumstances referred to above when taken together were sufficient to form the basis of conviction against the appellant.
9. We have minutely and carefully examined the entire record of the trial Court and feel no hesitation in saying at the very outset that the learned trial Judge in convicting the appellant has only betrayed his lack of judicial approach in the matter of appreciation of evidence in criminal cases or else there exists absolutely no material on the record which would even remotely connect the appellant with the death of his wife, Smt. Kulwant Kaur, if at all she is actually dead.
10. Before we advert to the evidence we would like to point out that in case where the prosecution endeavours to introduce at the trial a new version or a version which is materially different from the original, as narrated in the first information report, the Court, as a rule of prudence, is required to act with utmost care and circumspection in scrutinising the evidence and normally it should be reluctant to accept the prosecution evidence at its face value unless a satisfactory and cogent explanation is given for the deviations and improvements made. This rule of prudence was completely ignored by the trial Court in the instant case, though it was fully applicable.
11. Smt. Kulwant Kaur, the allgeged victim, is alleged to have disappeared from her parental house on 22nd August, 1983. Her father, Swaran Singh (P.W. 1), was apprised of this fact the very next day. He lodged the F.I.R. only on 30th August, 1983, after full inquiry and search of his daughter. There is a positive assetion in the F.I.R. that Kulwant Kaur left the house of her parents on 22nd August, 1983, at about 7.00 p.m. without informing anybody suggesting thereby that nobody knew where she had gone. It is further stated in the F.I.R. that the whereabouts of Kulwant Kaur were not known till the time of recording of the F.I.R. which means that she had not been seen by anybody after she left the house and till the F.I.R. was recorded. Again there is no mention in the F.I.R. if the appellant had ever written a letter to Swaran Singh (P.W. 1), the maker of the F.I.R. that Kulwant Kaur was suffering from some incurable disease or if the appellant wanted to get rid of her. At the trial, however, the case that the prosecution tried to set-up was that while leaving the house of her parents in the evening of 22nd August, 1983, Kulwant Kaur had told her mother that she was going to meet her husband, the appellant, who was waiting for her at the Cho. Evidence was also led to show that the appellant and Kulwant Kaur were both seen together boarding a bus from bus stand Bhadsali the same evening and that earlier the appellant had been seen near the Cho of the village. Another new factor introduced was that the appellant had written letter Ex. PB to Swaran Singh (P.W. 1) complaining that he had been duped in marrying a sick girl and that he would leave her, that is, Kulwant Kaur. The evidence in support of this improved version certainly deserved a more careful scrutiny.
12. Now taking up the various circumstances one by one we find that in so far as the circumstance No. 1 as mentioned above is concerned, there is no dispute that the appellant did visit the house of his in-laws in village Bhadsali on 17th August, 1983, and stayed there for about four or five days.
13. With respect to the second circumstance, we find it difficult to accept the prosecution version that the letter Ex. PB was addressed by the appellant to Swaran Singh (P.W. 1) in the manner stated by the prosecution. The version of the appellant on the other hand, that this letter was got written from him under coercion while in the police custody, appears to be more probable. This letter purports to have been written on 4th July, 1983, from Main Majri. We have tried to ascertain the date and station of posting from the postal stamp appearing thereon. No date is found on this stamp though the station of posting is Roopnagar. As per Swaran Singh (P.W. 1) this letter was received three or four days after the appellant left his house. If we remember that the appellant had left the house of Swaran Singh (P.W. 1) on 20th or 21st August, 1983, this letter should have reached Swaran Singh (P.W. 1) on 24th or 25th August, 1983, that is, two or three days after the disappearance of Kulwant Kaur. If it was so, it was an important clue to solve the mystery of the disappearance of Kulwant Kaur and must have been produced by Swaran Singh (P.W. 1) before the Police at the time of lodging the F.I.R. and in any case its reference must have been found in the F.I.R. It is, however, not so found. In case we accept the version that the letter was posted on 4th July, 1983, the date on which it purports to have been written, it should have reached Swaran Singh (P.W. 1) in any case within a week from the date of its posting. That would mean that the letter should have reached Swaran Singh (P.W. 1) long before the visit of the appellant to his house. We are unable to appreciate if after having addressed a letter of this language the appellant should have thought of visiting the house of his in-laws and staying there in cordial atmosphere for about four or five days. After giving our due consideration we are not satisfied if this letter was written by the appellant to his father-in-law in routine as the prosecution wants us to believe.
14. The third circumstance believed by the trial Court is that the appellant was last seen in the company of Kulwant Kaur on 22nd August, 1983, near the Cho in village Bhadsali by Naresh Kumar (PW 3). Now Naresh Kumar (PW 3) nowhere states if he saw the appellant on 22nd. August, 1983 in the company of Kulwant Kaur. All that this witness stated was that he had seen Nirmal Siagh appellant near the Cho on 22nd August, 1983. Even this version that this witness has seen the appellant near the Cho on 22nd August, 1983, does not inspire confidence. He never talked about having seen the appellant in the village on 22nd August, 1983, although there was a strong commotion in the village that Kulwant Kaur had disappeared. The witness himself stated that he started remembering the date '22-8-1983' because of the subsequent Raula in the village. There was thus a big Raula in the village on the same day but the witness preferred not to disclose about the presence of the appellant in the village on that crucial day.
15. The fourth circumstance relied upon by the trial Court is that the appellant and Kulwant Kaur were seen boarding a bus at bus stand Bhadsali together on 22nd August, 1983, by Kishan Chand (PW 2). Kishan Chand (PW 2) did state in his examination-in-chief that he saw the appellant and Kulwant Kaur boarding a bus at bus stand Bhadsali on 22nd August, 1983. He, however, could offer no explanation as to why he did not inform about this fact to the parents of Kulwant Kaur especially when he admits that there was a Raula in the village subsequent to the departure of the bus. At one stage he did tell that when there was a Raula, he talked about this matter to the Sarpanch. But this fact remains uncorroborated. In any case, the fact remains that till the time the F.I.R. was lodged on 30th August, 1983, there was no indication if the appellant and Kulwant Kaur had been seen boarding a bus at bus stand Bhadsali. The bald statement of PW 2, Kishan Chand in these circumstances can carry no conviction.
16. The fifth circumstance pressed into service by the learned trial Court against the appellant is that Kulwant Kaur had before leaving her parental house on 22nd August, 1983, told her mother that she was going to meet her husband at the Cho. In the absence of any explanation as to why this fact was not stated in the F.I.R. by Swaran Singh (PW 1), the father of Kulwant kaur, and who is alleged to have been duly apprised of this fact by his wife, we find no justification in accepting this bald statement of the mother of Kulwant Kaur.
17. The sixth circumstance is that Kulwant Kaur never returned to her parental house after she left for Cho on 22nd August, 1983. There is no dispute about this fact.
18. The seventh circumstance which has been used by the trial Court is that during his stay of four or five days at the house of his in-laws the appellant had a quarrel with his in-laws. We find no evidence justifying this conclusion, Swaran Singh (PW 1), father of Kulwant Kaur, admitted in so many words in his cross-examination that the appellant and his daughter, Kulwant Kaur, had cordial relations. He further stated that there was no dispute between the appellant and Kulwant Kaur when the appellant stayed at his house for three or four days. Paramjit Kaur (PW 8), the sister of Kulwant Kaur, and who also stayed in the same house along with the appellant and Kulwant Kaur made no reference whatsoever of any strained relations between the appellant and his wife or his in-laws. Harbans Kaur (PW 7), the mother of Kulwant Kaur, is the only person who talked about strained relations between the appellant and Kulwant Kaur. But she gave no specific instance of the quarrel that might have taken place between the appellant and any other member of the family of his in-laws. In view of the positive statement of Swaran Singh that the relations between the appellant and his wife, Kulwant Kaur, were cordial and complete silence on the part of Paramjit Kaur (PW 8), it is not safe to rely upon the solitary statement of Harbans Kaur (PW 7) which also, in our opinion, is rather vague, in coming to the conclusion that the appellant had quarrelled with his in-laws during his four or five days' stay at their house.
19. The eighth circumstance found against the appellant is that on 26th August, 1983, the appellant met his father-in-law, Swaran Singh (PW 1), at Una and on inquiry by the latter, he betrayed his ignorance regarding the whereabouts of the deceased. This circumstance, in our view is quite innocuous and this is immaterial whether it is found true or otherwise.
20. The ninth and the last circumstance relied upon by the trial Court in recording the conviction against the appellant is that the appellant while in police custody made a disclosure statement which led to the recovery of the earrings which Kulwant Kaur was wearing on her person at the time of her disappearance from her parental house. Ex PD is the disclosure statement alleged to have been made by the appellant. The relevant portion of this statement reads : -
I have sold a pair of golden earrings belonging to Kulwant Kaur against Rs. 432/-to a goldsmith on 23-8-1983 at Kharar after appending my signature.
The attesting witnesses of this disclosure statement are Swaran Singh (PW I) and Anlar Singh (PW 6). Ex. PF is the recovery memo vide which the ear-rings are alleged to have been taken into possession from the shop of the goldsmith at Kharar pursuant to the aforesaid statement. Vinod Jain and Antar Singh are the attesting witnesses of this recovery memo which is alleged to have been executed by Amar Nath goldsmith from whose shop the ear-rings'were recovered. We ate not impressed with the evidence of Swaran Singh (PW 1) and Antar Singh (PW 6) with respect to the disclosure statement as their presence at the Police Station at the time of recording of that statement has not been satisfactorily explained. In fact the witnesses contradicted each other about the manner and the time they reached the Police Station. The only witness who was associated at the time of recovery from the locality and who has been examined is Vinod Kumar (PW 12). He straightway refused to support the prosecution and denied if any recovery was effected in his presence. Again the writing which in terms of the disclosure statement extracted above had been signed by the appellant at the time of sale of these ear-rings could not be traced from the shop of the gold-smith. In these circumstances, it does not look safe to conclude if the appellant made any disclosure or got recovered the ear-rings in question.
21. All that can be said to have been established on the record is that the appellant visited the house of his in-laws on 17th August, 1983, and stayed there for four or five days. Thai Kulwant Kaur, the wife of the appellant disappeared from her parental house all by herself in the evening of 22nd August, 1983, without informing anybody and that thereafter she was never seen. These circumstances individually and collectively are quite innocuous for the purposes of the present case.
22. Now coming to the so-called extra judicial confession alleged to have been made by the appellant, we are again constrained to remark that the learned trial Judge ignored the very basic principles and guidelines governing the proof of confession while jumping at his conclusion that the appellant had actually and voluntarily confessed his guilt before Antar Singh (PW6), Chunan Singh (PW 5) and Hem Raj (PW 4). It need not be emphasised that a confession is required to be proved like any other fact and the standard of proof is the same as of any other fact in a criminal trial. The value of evidence of a confession would depend upon the veracity of the witnesses before whom it is alleged to have been made. The position of the person to whom the confession is alleged to have been made in relation to the person making the confession, the time lapse between the occurrence and the making of confession and the circumstances in which the confession is alleged to have been made are some of the relevant factors which need to be taken into account while appreciating such evidence. Another factor which cannot be ignored in this connection is the normal human psychology that a man, unless he is a hardened criminal, after the commission of a grave offence especially murder, has a natural tendency to unburden himself and share his terrible secrets with somebody else. Given time to ponder over, the fear of the consequences of his conviction may start acting in restraint of his natural impulse to confess. With the passage of time also this desire to confess may evaporate. Another surprising fact revealed by experience, and that should always be borne in mind, is that in our country extra-judicial confessions are generally introduced in evidence only when there is no direct, cogent and reliable evidence available to connect the accused with the crime. It is of very rare occurrence that evidence of confession is adduced when proof of accused's involvement in the offence i; otherwise satisfactory. There is no plausible explanation as to why this impulse to confess should be stronger in so-called blind cases only.
23. Now in the instant case the occurrence is alleged to have taken place on or about 22nd August, 1983. After the occurrence, the appellant met his father-in-law, Swaran Singh as also Hem Raj (PW4) at Una on 26th August, 1983. An inquiry was made from him about Kulwant Kaur but he betrayed his ignorance. He had obviously an occasion to confess at that time, if he so wanted but he never did. On 31st August, 1983, the police visited his house in his village when he is alleged to have given a slip to the police. This also shows that he was in no mood to confess. It looks strange that all of a sudden after a lapse of two weeks he makes up his mind to confess his guilt and for that purpose he decides to go all the way from his house to the place of Antar Singh (PW 6) after covering a distance of 80 or 90 miles just to confess. Antar Singh (PW 6), it may be remarked, is the person who admittedly arranged the marriage of the appellant with Kulwant Kuar and against whom the appellant was bearing a grudge ever since then. We cannot prevail upon ourselves to believe that out of all the persons the appellant would choose Antar Singh as the person to whom he should make a confession and out of all the places he should choose the house of Antar Singh (PW 6) for this purpose. Again as per Antar Singh (PW 6) the sister of Kulwant Kaur who is married to the brother of Antar Singh was also present in the house when the appellant made his confession but this sister of Kulwant Kaur is not forthcoming to depose even to the fact that the appellant visited her house on the day when the confession is alleged to have been made. P.W. 5, Chanan Singh, before whom the appellant is alleged to have repeated his confession was a total stranger to the appellant. There was no talk whatsoever between the appellant and Chanan Singh (PW 5) or for that matter between Antar Singh and Chanan Singh before the appellant is alleged to have confessed before Chanan Singh. We cannot appreciate what made the appellant to confess before Chanan Singh, a total stranger, and especially when he had already confessed before Antar Singh. It was a different matter if Antar Singh had apprised Chanan Singh about the confession of the appellant and the latter had affirmed in the presence of Chanan Singh (PW5). PW4, Hem Raj, is a type of omnibus witness who per chance happened to be present on each occasion, whether it was a meeting of the appellant with his father-in-law at Una on 26th August, 1983, or lodging of the F.I.R. on 30th August, 1983, or production of the letter Ex. PB by Swaran Singh (PW 1) before the Police. In any case we are not impressed with the evidence of confession as adduced by the prosecution. Otherwise also there is nothing on the record to suggest if there was any truth in the so-called confessional statement of the appellant.
24. In our view the prosecution has completely failed to bring home the charge to the appellant and he was, therefore, entitled to acquittal.