L.P. Tiwari was the Food Officer at Gondia. Ramesh was son of the L.P. Tiwari. The Kashmira Singh was an Assistant Food Procurement Inspector there. L.P. Tiwari found the Kashmira and Harbilas getting rice polished at a certain rice mill. At that time the polishing of rice was prohibited by a State law. L.P. Tiwari reported the all matter to the Deputy Commissioner of Bhandara. Then Deputy Commissioner suspended the Kashmira as well as later his services were terminated by an order of the State Government.
This embittered the
Kashmira who on occasions was express a determination to be revenged. This determination he got into touch with the
Gurubachan singh and enlisted his services for murdering the boy of L.P. Tiwari.
On the religious ceremonies were in progress all day in the Sikh Gurudwara at
Gondia. The boy of L.P. Tiwari (Ramesh) was there in the morning and there was
enticed to the house of the Kashmira's brother Gurudayal singh and was done to
death in a shockingly revolting fashion by Kashmira, with the active assistance
of Gurubachan singh, in that day. The body was tied up in a bag and rolled up
in a roll of bedding as well as allowed to lie in Gurudayal's house and the Ramesh
dead body wrapped as was carried by Gurubachan on his head to a chowkidar's hut
near the Sikh Gurudwara. The Kashmira was accompanied him. The distance along
the route was about half a mile to three quarters of a mile. It was left there
about midnight. In midnight Kashmira and Gurubachan engaged the services of a
rickshaw coolie Sannatrao. They took him to the chowkidar's hut, recovered the
bundle of bedding and went in the rickshaw to a well and there the dead body
was thrown into the well.
Gurubachan's confession
has played an important part in implicating the Kashmira, and the question at
once arises, the confession of an accused person can be used against a
co-accused? It is evident that it is not evidence in the ordinary sense of the
term because, as the Privy Council said that It does not indeed come within the
definition of evidence contained in Section 3 of the Evidence Act., It is not
required to be given on oath, nor in the presence of the accused as well as it
cannot be tested by cross examination.
It is a much weaker type of evidence than the evidence of an approver.
The Sessions Court held
that a conviction under Section 201 because he was convicting the appellant of
murder. He followed a Nagpur decision in such a case it would be improper to
convict in the alternative. The accused was associated with the disposal of the
body after the occurrence as well as at the scene of the crime. Twelve hours had elapsed and the first
connection proved with the disposal is at a place over half a mile distant from
where the boy is to have been murdered. The Court convicted the Kashmira of an
offence under Section 201, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to seven years'
rigorous imprisonment. The murder was cruel as well as revolting one as well as
for that reason it will be necessary to examine the evidence with more than
ordinary care lest the shocking nature of the crime induce an instinctive
reaction against a dispassionate judicial scrutiny of the facts and law.
The
Supreme Court held that appellant Kashmira Singh has been convicted of the
murder of one Ramesh, a small boy aged five, and has been sentenced to death.
The appellant Kashmira his brother Gurudayal singh, his nephew Pritipalsingh (son
of Gurudayal), a boy and one Gurubachan singh. Gurudayal and pritipal have been
acquitted. Gurubachan singh confessed and convicted with sentenced to death.
Post a Comment