Case Analysis: Nathu vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Case Details

Case name: Nathu vs State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: Venkatarama Ayyar, J.
Date of decision: 21 September 1955
Proceeding type: Special Leave Appeal
Source court or forum: High Court of Allahabad

Source Judgment: Read judgment

Factual and Procedural Background

The victim was a ten‑year‑old boy, Sumer Singh, whose father, Sri Nand Lal Kureel, reported him missing on the evening of 17 May 1952. The body was discovered that night in a well located in an out‑lying garden, and the post‑mortem report concluded death by asphyxia resulting from strangulation.

Two junior accused, Bhola and Ram Singh, were taken into lock‑up on 17 May, remained there until 22 May and, on 24 May, each gave a confessional statement before a Special First‑Class Magistrate (Exhibits P‑5 and P‑6). They alleged that the appellant, Nathu, had instructed them to lure the boy for a payment of Rs 5 each, had tied a cord around the boy’s neck, and had strangled him while they held his hands and feet.

The appellant was first arrested on the night of 20‑21 May 1952, released immediately, and re‑arrested on 8 June after the father complained to the Superintendent of Police. He was kept in jail until 7 August, after which a CID inspector placed him in separate custody from 7 August to 20 August. On 21 August 1952 he made a confessional statement before the same magistrate (Exhibit P‑15), implicating the fourth accused, Bagh Ali, a dismissed head constable, as the principal offender.

All four accused were committed to the Sessions Court for trial on murder charges under Section 302 IPC. The Sessions Judge convicted Bhola and Ram Singh of murder, sentencing them to life transportation on the basis of their confessions, and convicted the appellant of murder, sentencing him to death. The conviction of the appellant rested on his own confession (Exhibit P‑15), the testimony of two eyewitnesses (PW 13 and PW 15), and the confessions of the two junior accused. The fourth accused, Bagh Ali, was acquitted for lack of corroboration.

The High Court of Allahabad affirmed both the conviction and the death sentence of the appellant. The appellant then obtained special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of India.

Issues, Contentions and Controversy

The Supreme Court was required to determine:

Whether the appellant’s confession recorded on 21 August 1952 was made voluntarily and therefore admissible as evidence.

Whether, assuming admissibility, the confession was sufficiently corroborated by the testimony of PW 13 and PW 15 or by any other independent material.

Whether the confessional statements of the two junior accused could be used as substantive evidence against the appellant.

Whether the lower courts had erred in sustaining a murder conviction and death sentence on the basis of an involuntary, uncorroborated confession.

Contentions of the appellant were that his confession was involuntary because of the unexplained prolonged separate custody, that the eyewitness testimony was unreliable and insufficient to corroborate the confession, and that the junior accused’s confessions were not “evidence” within the meaning of Section 3 of the Evidence Act and could not support a conviction in the absence of independent proof.

Contentions of the State were that the appellant’s confession was voluntary, that the eyewitnesses corroborated the confession in material particulars, and that the junior accused’s confessions could be considered to lend assurance to the appellant’s confession, thereby satisfying the requirement of corroboration.

The precise controversy therefore centred on the legality of sustaining a murder conviction on a confession alleged to be involuntary and uncorroborated, and on the propriety of using co‑accused statements as substantive evidence.

Statutory Framework and Legal Principles

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code defined the substantive offence of murder.

Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act defined the scope of “evidence” and provided that statements of co‑accused were not substantive evidence unless corroborated by independent material.

Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code was invoked in the proceedings against the fourth accused, Bagh Ali.

Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code dealt with the reference of a death sentence for confirmation.

The Court applied the following legal principles:

The confession must be proved to be voluntary; the burden of proving voluntariness rested on the prosecution.

A confession alone could not sustain a conviction unless it was corroborated by independent material facts.

Statements of co‑accused were not “evidence” under Section 3 of the Evidence Act and could be considered only when corroborated by independent proof.

Court’s Reasoning and Application of Law

The Court examined the circumstances of the appellant’s confession and held that the prolonged separate custody from 7 August to 20 August, without any explanation by the investigating CID inspector, created a presumption of involuntariness. The prosecution had failed to rebut this presumption, and consequently the confession could not be treated as voluntary.

Having found the confession involuntary, the Court concluded that there was no other independent evidence upon which a conviction could rest. The testimony of PW 13 was incomplete, and PW 15 admitted he did not know the deceased or the co‑accused; therefore, neither witness provided reliable corroboration of the confession.

The Court further held that the confessions of Bhola and Ram Singh, although recorded before a magistrate, were not “evidence” within the meaning of Section 3 of the Evidence Act. Because there was no independent corroborative material, these statements could not be used to lend assurance to the appellant’s confession.

The Court noted the inconsistency between the appellant’s confession, which implicated Bagh Ali as the principal offender, and the junior accused’s confessions, which portrayed the appellant as the prime perpetrator. This inconsistency, together with the lack of reliable corroboration, reinforced the conclusion that the prosecution’s case was unsafe.

Applying the statutory provisions and the established legal tests, the Court determined that the conviction and death sentence were unsupported by admissible and reliable evidence.

Final Relief and Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and the death sentence of the appellant, and directed that he be released from custody.

In its final conclusion, the Court affirmed that a confession is admissible only when proved voluntary, that a conviction cannot rest solely on an uncorroborated confession, and that statements of co‑accused are not substantive evidence unless independently corroborated. Accordingly, the appellant’s conviction was vacated, and he was ordered to be set at liberty.