1968 P Cr (PLP)

CORNELIUS, C. J.‑The principal facts of this case are as follows. At about 3‑25 a.m., on the morning of the 4th March 1963, the accused Karamat Hussain who was working as a to en man at a small wayside railway station named Kaluwal, cane running to the Assistant Station Master's room to say that a pointsman. Muhammad Ramzan had been forcibly carried away by two men, and he had himself been chased by three men whom he bad eluded. A short search was made for Muhammad Ramzan, whose lamps and keys were found near the railway track, but there was no sign of him. His body was found the next morning at a distance of 200 yards from the railway line. He had' received three heavy blows on the head, each of which had fractured the skull. It was the Police case that Karamat Hussain had killed Muhammad Ramzan so as to replace him on the station staff, his own posting as token‑man being temporary. The further allegations were that Karamat Hussain on the 6th March 1963 made an extra‑judicial confession to Muhammad Fazil and Lal Hussain, who then produced him before the Investigating Officer, after which Karamat Hussain led the Police party to his quarter, and produced therefrom (1) the broken handle of a hatchet, (2) a pair of chappals, (3) a dhoti, (4) a khes, and (5) a shirt, all of which were found to be stained with blood, which on analysis was proved to be human blood. The Sessions `Judge's judgment cannot be regarded as satis factory, for it contains no evaluation of the recoveries, and while it rejects the evidence of the extra‑judicial confession on good grounds, proceeds to convict the accused on the finding that he was very anxious to stay at Kaluwal, and "the fateful night afforded him a golden opportunity" "to do away with the outsider, namely, the deceased." The accused had said from the first that he and Muhammad Ramzan had been attacked by owners of the fields around the railway station, who sus pected them of stealing green crops at night. The suggestion was that they stole the crops to supply fodder for the Station Master's buffalo, and the Station Master had admitted that he used to get green fodder for his buffalo, but never through Muhammad Ramzan, because firstly he was lame in one leg, and secondly he did not belong to the area. (Karamat Hussain belongs to a village close to the railway station). This expla nation was negatived on the ground that there was no green crops near the place where the body was found, nor any cut crops near the body. The aspect that the killing was on suspicion that the man (or men) were out to steal crops was not considered. There was ample reliable evidence on the record to show that the accused was under interrogation from the morning of the 4th March onwards, and the story that he was brought to the Police by Muhammad Fazil and Lal Hussain on the morn ing of the 6th March, who reported that he was confessing the crime, has been disbelieved by both Courts below. This reflects on the credence to be given to the evidence of recoveries on the 6th March, for these were from the accused's own quarter at the Railway Station, which the Police would certainly have searched much earlier, if as clearly appears, they doubted his story. The motive put forward is one of an extraordinary kind. Every department of the public service is staffed by persons who are placed in different grades and at different posts or places, each carrying advantages in the eyes of persons in grades below or in posts or places of lesser advantage. It is extremely rare to find a public servant killing another in order to get his place. As to the recoveries, apart from the circumstance of the delay of two days, there is also the fact that from about 3‑25 a.m., onwards, the accused could have had no opportunity to kill the deceased ; that being so, the killing must have taken place between 3‑05 a.m., when the two men were on duty to see a goods‑train through, and 3‑25 a.m. The body was found 200 yards from the railway line. The accused's clothes were not blood‑stained when he reappeared before the Station Master. The interval of 20 minutes appears plainly too short for all that the accused must be supposed to have done, on the prosecution case. There are factors of doubt which need further examination, and we accordingly grant leave to appeal.