Nishi Kant Jha vs. State of Bihar, 1968

• The Prosecution story in brief is that Nishikant Jha a student of Jhajha High School, was charged with the murder of a fellow student of the same school and robbing him of the sum of Rs- 34 on October 12, 1961.
• In this case, the murder took place in the train popularly known as Barauni-Sealdah Passenger. When the Train reached at Jasidih Station one Anil Kumar Roy wanted to board the train in the said compartment but could not do so. He then entered the other compartment.
• The Dead body of the deceased was found in the Lavatory. He was found with neck cut and besmeared with blood. Blood was coming out from the veins of the neck. The photographs were taken and post-motrem was done and later the dead body as identified as one- Jai Prakash Dubey , Student of Class- X B, Science of Jahaja High school. The injuries were homicidal and death was caused by Bleeding and Shock.
• The Appellant was then noticed by one Ram Kishore pandey (PW 17) washing his clothes near the river Ptro and about one hour before sunset on 12th October, 1961. Pandey noticed that there was a cut on the left of the appellant and questioned him for the same.
• The appellant's version was that the left hand of the Appelant was cut because one cowboy had assaulted him and cut his finger with glass and snatched away his money. Ram Kishore Pandey on reaching his home heard from Shiv Shankar Pandey (PW 25), that a murder had been committed in the Barauni-Sealdah Train and they suspected that the Appellant might be the murderer.
• They then started the search of the Appellant and they found him 1 mile from the village of Tithapur while going in the bullock cart and on being accosted he said he was going to village Roshan being his sister's place of residence and said that he did not commit any Murder.

• Whether the statement was given by the accused and taken by the Mukhiya of the village before the arrest was admissible as evidence or not?
• Whether the court can dismiss the exculpatory part of the statement and consider the inculpatory part for the purpose of convicting the accused?

ARGUMENT:-

Learned counsel for the appellant that if the statement is to be considered at all, it must be taken as a whole and the Court could not act upon one portion of it while rejecting the other. Counsel sought to rely on three judgments of this Court in aid of his contention that a statement which contains any admission or confession must be considered as a whole and the Court is not free to accept one part while rejecting the rest.

The first important rule is that "the whole statement containing the Admissions must be taken together; for though some part of it may be favourable to the party, and the object is only to ascertain what he has conceded against himself, and what may therefore be presumed to be true, yet, unless the whole is received, the true meaning of the part, which is evidence against him, cannot be ascertained. But though the whole of what he said at the same time, and relating to the same subject, must be given in evidence, it does not follow that all the parts of the 'statement should be regarded as equally deserving of credit; but the jury must consider, under the circumstances, how much of the entire statement they deem worthy of belief, including as well the facts asserted by the party in his own favour as those making against him."

JUDGMENT :- 

The judgement was delivered by - G. K Mitter, J

It was held that the Statement was given by the accused and that of the exculpatory of the statement was not only inherently improbable but was contradicted by the other evidence and and so it was wholly unacceptable. The other incriminating circumstances were considered along with the appellant's statement pointing conclusively. It was said on the behalf of the appellant before the High Court that he has stated in his statements that- "He was present at the time of the murder" and also said that-"Murder was committed by any other person". Court admitted the first statement and not the other.

There were other circumstantial evidence before the High Court, like:

• Accused washing clothes stained with blood.
• He has seen to carry clothes and book stained with blood.
• He has seen with a 9 inches knife.
• The medical report suggested that wounds on the deceased body were caused by a knife.

The Supreme Court considered all their facts and arguments. Supreme Court held that the statement of confession by accused is not capable of admission because it is contradictory to statements by another witness. Appellant made two contradictory statements about the injury on his finger once he said that is was caused due to an attack while other times he said that it was caused during protecting himself from the attack by Mohan Lal Sharma.

According to the medical report, his finger injury was not so grievous that the clothes got stained by so much blood. The knife also had human blood. All these facts rejected the statements which acquit him. Due to above all reasons, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and approved the sentence laid by the High Court.

• It can be concluded from the judgment given by the court that it is upon the court to exonerate the exculpatory part and take the inculpatory part into consideration and convict the accused.
• It can also inferred, that the statement given by the accused which is inculpatory and exculpatory at the same time, the court cannot simply reject the exculpatory part, and include the inculpatory part. It must be taken into consideration along with other evidence which is adduced by the prosecution with regard to convicting the accused.
• The circumstantial evidence can be primary evidence but differs from case to case. It must be corroborated with other types of evidence.