SURAJPALSINGH v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — 1972 DIGILAW 55 (MP)

JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THE judgment in this appeal shall also govern the disposal of criminal appeal No. 636 of 1968. ( 2. ) THE accused-appellant Surajpalsingh has been convicted by the Third additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, under section 302 of the Indian Penal code for committing the murder of his wife Mst. Sushilabai on the night between the 1st and 2nd of February 1968 in his quarters, 5/4 Madrasi Line, ghamapur, Jabalpur, and sentenced to imprisonment for life. In the same trial, his younger brother, the accused-appellant Brijendrapalsingh has been convicted under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years together with a fine of Rs. 200 or, in default of payment of the fine, rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months more. ( 3. ) THE deceased Sushilabai was the wife of the accused-appellant Surajpalsingh who was a fitter in the Gun Carriage Factory, Jabalpur. They both resided together in Quarter No. 5/4, Madrasi Line, Ghamapur, Jabalpur. The accused-appellant Brijendrapalsingh is a younger brother of the accused-appellant Surajpalsingh, He was employed as a tracer in the Public Health Department and resided with his elder brother and sister-in-law in their quarter in madrasi Line. At the time of the incident, the deceased was in an advanced state of pregnancy, about 34 weeks old. ( 4. ) THE prosecution alleges that the relations between the deceased and her husband as also between her and her in laws were not cordial. The accused-appellant Surajpalsingh suspected her fidelity. Consequently on the night between the 1st and 2nd of February 1968, while the deceased Sushilabai was asleep in her residential quarters, the accused-appellant Surajpalsingh committed her murder by inflicting a number of injuries on the neck and other parts of her body with a sharp knife. It is further alleged that thereafter he sent his blood-stained clothes and the crime knife to his native place, Bhojpur, uttar Pradesh, through his brother, the accused-appellant Brijendrapalsingh. Brijendrapalsingh left Jabalpur on this errand in the early hours of the morning of the 2nd of February 1968 by the Kashi Express. ( 5. ) ON being prosecuted, both the accused-appellants have abjured their guilt and pleaded that they had been falsely implicated. Brijendrapalsingh left Jabalpur on this errand in the early hours of the morning of the 2nd of February 1968 by the Kashi Express. ( 5. ) ON being prosecuted, both the accused-appellants have abjured their guilt and pleaded that they had been falsely implicated. Their defence is that on the date of the incident they were in the house till about midnight when they left for the railway-station as Brijendrapalsingh was going to Bhojpur to bring their mother to help in the confinement of Sushilabai (the deceased) who was pregnant and whose delivery was imminent. The accused-appellant Surajpalsingh says that after seeing off Brijendrapalsingh when he returned to his quarters at about 3 or 3. 30 a. m. , his wife (the deceased) did not open the door. Hearing his shouts, his neighbours came out of their quarters. He told them that his wife was not responding to his calls. Sitaram (P. W. 1) then climbed the compound wall and helped the accused-appellant Surajpalsingh also to climb it. They then both thus entered into the courtyard. Thereafter, the accused-appellant Surajpalsingh first switched on the lights of the verandah and then of one of the rooms when he found that his wife had been murdered and his house ransacked. According to him, he found Rs. 800 missing from a purse in the house which made him suspect that robbers may have murdered his wife and stolen the money. They examined five witnesses in defence. ( 6. ) THE convictions of the accused-appellants rest on circumstantial evidence only as there are no eye-witnesses of the incident. ( 7. ) BEFORE we discuss the evidence relating to the circumstances, we may shortly describe the topography of the quarter in which the murder is alleged to have taken place. ( 8. ) MADRASI line consists of a long line of tenement houses adjacent to one another locally known as a chawl. The quarter of the accused-appellant surajpalsingh was numbered 5/4. It consisted of two rooms, each measuring 8 x 10 with a covered verandah in front of them. A part of the verandah was also used as a kitchen. In front of the verandah was an open (open to the sky) courtyard enclosed by walls. The two walls on the sides separated the quarters adjacent and the wall in front separated it from the road outside. A part of the verandah was also used as a kitchen. In front of the verandah was an open (open to the sky) courtyard enclosed by walls. The two walls on the sides separated the quarters adjacent and the wall in front separated it from the road outside. This front wall was about 5 high and had a door which could be closed both from inside as well as from outside. The rooms and the verandah had one electric bulb each. Each of the rooms could be chained from inside as well as outside. ( 9. ) IN the room on the right as you face the quarter, the dead body of the deceased was found lying on a cot. It had an incised wound 13/4" x1/4" x cutting the underlying muscles arteris and veins severing the superior thyroid artery on the right side of neck 2" below the mandible and lateral to median line 2", oblique in direction. The body was covered with a quilt. ( 10. ) NOW, it is not disputed that Mst. Sushila is dead and that she died of homicidal violence. According to Dr. Sharma (P. W. 3), who conducted the autopsy on 2-2-1968 at about 4 p. m. , the deceased had the following external injuries on her person : (1) An incised wound 2" x 1/4" x bone deep transverse in the middle of chin. (2) An incised wound 13/4" x 1/4" x cutting the underlying muscles, arteries veins severing the superior thyroid artery on the right side of neck 2" below the mandible and lateral to median line 2", oblique in direction. (3) An incised wound transverse x 1/4" x muscle deep, 1/4" below injury No. 2. (4) An incised wound " x 1/4" x muscle deep below and lateral to the right ear. (5) An incised wound 1/4" x 1/4" x1/4" below the lobe of left ear. (6) An incised wound transverse 1/4" x 1/4" x muscle deep on the left side of neck 2" from the median line ending in a linear scrutch 31" in length. The injuries had been caused by a sharp-edged weapon ante-mortem. The death was instantaneous caused by shock and haemorrhage as a result of the injuries inflicted on the deceased. Ex. P-1 is the post-mortem report. ( 11. The injuries had been caused by a sharp-edged weapon ante-mortem. The death was instantaneous caused by shock and haemorrhage as a result of the injuries inflicted on the deceased. Ex. P-1 is the post-mortem report. ( 11. ) AS the most important circumstance in the case is the conduct of the accused-appellant Surajpalsingh subsequent to the commission of the alleged offence, we shall first examine the evidence of Sitaram (P. W. 1) and Ram-charan (P. W. 2), the immediate neighbours of the accused-appellant Surajpalsingh in the Madrasi line where he resided with his deceased wife Mst. Sushila prior to her murder. ( 12. ) BOTH these persons live in quarter 5/5, which is to the right of the quarter of the accused-appellant Surajpalsingh, if you stand facing it. Their quarter is similar to the quarter of the accused-appellant Surajpalsingh. In the room on the left of their quarter Ramcharan (P. W. 2) resided. This room was adjacent to the room of the deceased where her dead body was discovered on the morning of the 2nd of February 1968. Sitaram (P. W. 1) resided in the room which was situate to the right of their quarter. On the left of the quarter of the accused-appellant Surajpalsingh was the quarter of one Fool-chand. ( 13. ) THE evidence of Sitaram (P. W. 1) is: and then to outsiders my wife has been murdered and I am ruined; that this again was very strange conduct on the part of the accused-appellant Surajpalsingh; that one would reasonably expect that in such a situation the accused appellant Surajpalsingh would would first enter the room of his wife, switch on the light and find out why she did not open the door even when so many persons had called out for her ; that instead, we find that the accused-appellant husband was first afraid to enter the house and even when he entered it with Sitaram (P. W. 1), he was afraid to enter the room where his wife lay dead murdered, that it was very strange indeed that the accused-appellant Surajpalsingh did not enter any of the rooms of his house and though he switched on the light of the room on the left from outside, he did not even switch on the light of the room where his wife lay - not even from outside. (7) That the room on the right of the quarter of the accused-appellant Surajpalsingh where the dead body was found has doors and yet there is no evidence how it was opened ; that it is reasonable to expect that when a lone woman is sleeping in her room and the entry into the quarter is not difficult if one came by scaling over the wall, she would sleep after chaining the door from inside. (8) That the outer door of the quarter, which opens out on the road from the open courtyard, was chained from inside; that if an intruder was to make his exit after committing an offence he would rather go by opening the front door and not by jumping over the wall which could at once arouse suspicion if someone was to see him do it. (9) That according to Ramcharan (P. W. 2), he had heard a cry of the deceased as if she was in agony at about midnight and the accused-appellant Surajpalsingh was in the house till midnight because it was after midnight that he went to the Railway Station, Jabalpur, to see his brother off to Bhojpur. ( 14. ) THE aforesaid circumstances, especially the agitated conduct of the accused-appellant Surajpalsingh even before he had entered his quarter, his reluctance to enter his quarter by himself, his calling out his neighbours Sitaram (P. W. 1) and Ramcharan (P. W. 2) and asking Sitaram (P. W. 1) to enter his quarter first, his conduct in neither switching on the light of the room occupied by his wife nor entering it and protesting to Sitaram (P. W. 1) that he was ruined and then to the crowd which had collected outside that his wife had been murdered, clearly show that he was out to create evidence in his favour. It was not the natural conduct of a husband who on return from the Railway station finds that his wife was not responding to his calls to open the doors. If the accused-appellant Surajpalsingh was attempting to create an evidence of alibi, it must be because he was attempting to ward off any suspicion against himself because he had the guilty knowledge that he was the assailant of the deceased. ( 15. ) ONE of the pleas in defence is taken through the counsel that there was cash of about Rs. ( 15. ) ONE of the pleas in defence is taken through the counsel that there was cash of about Rs. 800 in the house and that some person had committed the theft and murdered his wife. This was not the plea taken by the accused-appellant Surajpalsingh in his statement under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has held the plea to be false and an after thought and we agree with his conclusion on the point. In the first place, there is no reliable evidence that the accused appellant Surajpalsingh had Rs. 800 in the house. Secondly, if the motive for the murder was robbery, the robber would not have left some ornaments on the person of the deceased and some others lying in the room. The deceased had on her person, even after her murder, a pair of silver Payals, and two silver bachhias and a gold Jhumka (pendent earings) was found near the dead body under the cot and another of the pair in the kitchen. ( 16. ) THE second circumstance against the accused appellant Surajpalsingh is that on 3-2-1967, a wrist-watch with a chain (Article B) was seized from the person of the accused-appellant Surajpalsingh vide seizure memorandum (Ex. P-16 ). The accused-appellant Surajpalsingh does not deny the seizure though he says that the seizure was done on 5-2-1968. We have, however, no reason to disbelieve the prosecution that the seizure was done on 3-2-1968. The said wrist-watch and chain were found to be stained with blood by the Chemical examiner vide his report (Ex P-52 ). The origin of the blood could not be determined by the Serologist as the blood had disintegrated, Ex. P-53 is the report of the Serologist. The accused-appellant Surajpalsingh has given no explanation for the presence of blood on the wrist-watch and chain. It is not usual or common to find blood-stains on the wrist-watch and chain. ( 17. ) THE third circumstance against the accused-appellant Surajpalsingh is that footprints in blood found near the place of the murder were similar to the footprints of the accused-appellant Surajpalsingh. ( 18. ) ACCORDING to Sitaram (P. W. 1) and Ramcharan (P. W. 2), the footprints in blood were seen on the floor of the verandah going from the room where the dead body was found towards the courtyard and the bathroom. ( 18. ) ACCORDING to Sitaram (P. W. 1) and Ramcharan (P. W. 2), the footprints in blood were seen on the floor of the verandah going from the room where the dead body was found towards the courtyard and the bathroom. They had seen them in the early hours of the morning of 2-2-1968 when they had entered the quarter of the accused-appellant Surajpalsingh along with the police. S. C. Sharma (P. W. 13), Station-Officer, Ghamapur, had also seen these footprints in blood in the verandah of the quarter of the accused-appellant Surajpalsingh. In order to preserve their purity and identity, he had prohibited the entry of persons to the verandah These footprints were examined by the Footprint Expert Awasthy (P. W. 12 ). Ex. P-36 in his report. Awasthy (P. W. 12) had found the footprints near the cot of the deceased, in the kitchen part of the verandah and in the verandah. After selecting the best footprints, he obtained their glass drawings and from these their traces on paper (Exs. P-36 and P-37 ). He also got these photographed. Exs. P-20 to P-26 are the photographs. He then obtained the footprints of the accused appellant Surajpalsingh in printers ink (Exs. P-39, P-39 A, P-40 and P-40-A) and the results of his comparison of the footprints found on the spot were that he found the following similarities between them : "right-foot : (1) The alignment of the toes of both are circular. (2) Both have a Kanth-Rekha (phalange) and separate found. Zanjiri line (head line of the ball of the foot) is separate from the toe. (3) There is appex below the second toe in the both. (4) On drawing a straight line by connecting the bulges of Choti Assi (outer margin of foot), Chichi (little toe) is inside. (5) Big toe is straight. (6) There is a gradual slop from the appex towards the Chichi (little toe) and there are two concavities in the Zanjiri line (head line of the ball of the foot ). The zanjiri line became straight from the appex towards the toe. (7) Big toe is oval. (8) Second toe is away from the big toe and nearer to the third toe and third toe is away from the fourth toe. (9) Phava (the ball of the foot) is oval. " ( 19. The zanjiri line became straight from the appex towards the toe. (7) Big toe is oval. (8) Second toe is away from the big toe and nearer to the third toe and third toe is away from the fourth toe. (9) Phava (the ball of the foot) is oval. " ( 19. ) THE dissimilarities were : " (1) The Tali (the instep) is narrower of Ex. P-40 than Tali (instep) of Ex. P-38. (2) The impression of Chichi (little toe) is Ex. P-38 and of the fourth finger are not so remarkable while in Ex. P-40 they are. (3) In Ex. P-38 Eri (heel) is oval while in Ex. P-40 the Eri is square like. " ( 20. ) IN the opinion of the expert, the dissimilarities were due to difference in the densities of the printers ink and blood. ( 21. ) LEFT foot (Exs. P-37 and P. 39 ). Similarities : " (1) The slant of both the big toe is towards outside. (2) Kantha Rekha (phalange is rectangular and separate from the big toe and zanjiri line (the head line of the ball of the foot ). (3) The allignment of the toes is round. (4) Second toe is away from the big toe and nearer to the third toe. (5) The bulge of Phava (the ball of the foot) and Chhoti Assi (outer margin of foot)is prominent. (6) Appex is below the second toe. (7) There are three curves in Zanjiri line (the head line of the ball of the foot out of of them the third is below Chichi (little toe ). (8; Eri (the heel) is oval. (9) If a straight line be drawn joining the buldges of Choti Assi (outer margin of the foot) the Chichi (the little toe) will be inside. (10) Zanjiri line (the head line of the ball of the foot) is straight below the Kanth rekha (phalange ). " Dissimilarities : " (1) The impression of Chichi (little toe) is more remarkable in Ex. P-7 than ex. P. 9. (2) Talli (instep) is thicker in Ex. P-37 than in Ex. P-39. (3) There is very little difference in the length and width from Phava (the ball of the foot) and appex upto Eri," Again in the opinion of the expert, the dissimilarities were due to difference in density between the printers ink and blood. ( 22. P. 9. (2) Talli (instep) is thicker in Ex. P-37 than in Ex. P-39. (3) There is very little difference in the length and width from Phava (the ball of the foot) and appex upto Eri," Again in the opinion of the expert, the dissimilarities were due to difference in density between the printers ink and blood. ( 22. ) IN view of the aforesaid similarities, he (P. W. 13) opined that the blood-stained footprints found on the spot could be of the accused-appellant surajpalsingh. ( 23. ) WE examined and compared the footprints for ourselves and, in our opinion, there is such a remarkable similarity between the admitted footprints of the accused-appellant Surajpalsingh and the footprints in blood found on the spot that there is a high degree of probability that the footprints in blood found on the floor of the verandah of the accused-appellant Surajpalsingh, are the footprints of the accused-appellant Surajpalsingh. ( 24. ) IN Pritamsingh v. The State of Punjab ( AIR 1956 SC 415 ) Bhagwati J. ; speaking for the Court said : "the science of identification of footprints is no doubt a rudimentary science and not much reliance can be placed on the result of such identification. The track evidence; however, can be relied upon as a circumstance which, along with other circumstances, would point to the identity of culprit, though by itself it would not be enough to carry conviction in the minds of the Court. " ( 25. ) IT was, however, unfortunate that it was not brought to the notice of the Court that the identification of persons from footprints has many facets and that all these facets could not be clubbed together and science of identification from footprints be dubbed as a rudimentary science. ( 26. ) THE identification of persons from footprints may broadly be classified as under : (1) Identification from footprints when the footprints show ridge characteristics. In such cases, the science is as accurate as the science of fingerprints. The prints of the foot of a person show ridge characteristics of his fingers and may be used in a similar way for the identification of persons from similarity or ridge characteristics. (2) Identification from footprints which have special characteristics apart from ridge etc. Some feet have special characteristics, such as a scar at a particular place, an extra or missing toe, a deformative peculiarity etc. (2) Identification from footprints which have special characteristics apart from ridge etc. Some feet have special characteristics, such as a scar at a particular place, an extra or missing toe, a deformative peculiarity etc. In this case, the value of identification is proportional to the number of pecularities, (3) Identification of footprints which show neither ridge characteristics nor other special peculiarities. This is what we usually understand by identification from footprints though quite erroneously, because it is only one of three categories of identification from footprints. This is based on what is known as Gayar System as propounded by G. W. Gayar, I. P. , in his book foot Prints an aid to the detection of crime for the Police and magistracy (1909) first edition. In this system, which is based on the system of the khojis, who were professional trackers of Rajputana, a foot has 12 features, namely, the five toes called Anguta, Dusri, Tesri, Chothi and chichi, the head line of the ball of the foot called Zanjeri, the ball of the foot called Pab, the instep called Talli, the length of the foot from the uppermost point of Anguta to the lower most on the heel (Eri) called Chab, the heel called Eri, the inner margin of the foot called Bari assi and the outer margin of the foot called Ghhoti assi. According to the author, every one of these twelve features has as much characters as the features of face. Once a pupil learns to distinguish them at a glance, he is able to recognise a person from his foot impressions as easily as he can from his face. These features and their characteristics are compared with reference to three guide lines : the first is a verticle line going to the highest point of the big toe (anguta) to the centre of the heel (Eri), the second line is at right angle to the aforesaid line running under the base of the little toe (Chichi) and the third joins the highest point of the big toe to the top of the little toe and joins the second line. The author further says at page 3 : "it is obvious that every individuals footprint must have a distinct individuality, for even if there were only three common types of each of the features, and we had nothing else to go on, the total possible number of different types would be 531, 441, so that, on the average, two feet in about every million would be similar. A careful study of the illustrations and of the text will show that these figures do not err on the side of exaggeration. " Again at page 6, paragraph 30, the author to avoid possibilities of error in identification says : "when two impressions are being compared with each other with the object of finding out if both have been made by the same foot, one thing must be clearly understood, if they are impressions of the same foot they will agree in all essential points and there will be no points of disagreement. If there are points of disagreement, and these have not obviously been caused by some peculiarity or irregularity of the ground, or by some accident, it should be at once admitted that the impressions are those of different feet. " ( 27. ) REJECTING the contention that the study of footprints is not a science in Din Mohammad Emperar (Central Provices Police Gazette, dated 27th May, 1914, pp. 125-130), the Court of Judicial Commissioner at Nagpur (H. J. Stanyon and H. P. Hallifax A. J. Cs ,) as far back as in 1914 held : "now the knowledge of hand-writing and that of finger impressions have been systematised and arranged under general truths and principles by many writers and pursued by many enquirers, and they are both sciences in which a great deal of progress has been made. The knowledge of footprints has similarly been systematised and pursued by trackers mainly uncivilised and ignorant people in all other respects, all over the world, and also at the Saugor Police Training School under Mr. G. W. Ga3er, who has arranged the knowledge he obtained from other seekers and from his own observation and experiments in a valuable monograph entitled footprints. The matter is therefore undoubtedly a science and the opinion of a person specially skilled in it is a relevant fact under section 45 of the Evidence Act. " ( 28. G. W. Ga3er, who has arranged the knowledge he obtained from other seekers and from his own observation and experiments in a valuable monograph entitled footprints. The matter is therefore undoubtedly a science and the opinion of a person specially skilled in it is a relevant fact under section 45 of the Evidence Act. " ( 28. ) IN the instant case the points of similarities are 9 in respect of the right foot impressions and 10 in respect of the left foot impressions and the points of dissimilarities are three only in each case which have been explained by the expert (P. W. 13) as due to the different densities of the media in which the foot impressions were made, namely, printers ink and blood. The comparison has thus stood the test will and, under the circumstances, these foot impressions in blood near the place of the incident which are proved to be those of the accused-appellant Surajpalsingh by preponderance of probabilities, are a strong incriminating circumstance against the accused-appellant Surajpalsingh for which he has not accounted. ( 29. ) THE last circumstance is that the accused appellant Surajpalsingh had some motive for the commission of the crime. Exs. P-44 to P-49 are the letters seized from the residential quarter of the accused-appellant Surajpalsingh. Vide, Ex. P-15 their seizure memorandum. The seizure has been denied by the accused-appellant Surajpalsingh but we see no reason to doubt the testimony of Amarnath (P. W. 7) and Shukla (P. W. 6) who prove the seizure. Amongst the letters, we have Ex. P-49 dated 24-11-1965 addressed to the accused-appellant Surajpalsingh which clearly shows that the relations between the accused-appellant Surajpalsingh and his wife were far from cordial. Ex. P-48 is a letter written by the accused-appellant Surajpalsingh to his brother, the accused-appellant Brijendrapalsingh. He says therein that he had brought his wife home because - These letters thus amply show that the feelings between the accused-appellant surajpalsingh and his wife (the deceased) were so strained that they could well furnish a motive for the commission of the crime. It has to be remembered that proof of motive is not at all essential for the proof of a crime; but when one is shown to exist, it does explain what would have remained inexplicable without it. ( 30. It has to be remembered that proof of motive is not at all essential for the proof of a crime; but when one is shown to exist, it does explain what would have remained inexplicable without it. ( 30. ) THE aforesaid circumstances, which are all well established, fully establish the guilt of the accused-appellant Surajpalsingh. They, in our opinion, are consistent and consistent only with his guilt and are quite inconsistent with any hypothesis of his innocence. ( 31. ) THE conviction of the accused-appellant Surajpalsingh is thus proper. It is hereby affirmed The sentence calls for no interference. His appeal is, therefore dismissed. ( 32. ) THE accused-appellant Brijendrapalsingh has been convicted under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The only evidence against him is that he had made a confessional statement, of which Ex. P-17 is the memorandum, leading to the discovery of a human blood-stained knife from his house at bhojpur where he had concealed it. The confession leading to the discovery of clothes has no significance because neither the clothes were proved to be blood-stained nor proved to belong to the accused-appellant Surajpalsingh. As regards the knife, there is no doubt that the knife was stained with human blood. According to the Chemical Examiners report (Ex. P-52), blood stains were de ected over major parts of the knife and, according to the report of the serologist Ex. P-53), the blood was of human origin. But the real difficulty is about the fastening of possession of the knife on the accused-appellant Brijendrapalsingh. According to the confessional memorandum (Ex. P-17), the accused-appellant Brijendrasingh had said **** but none of the witnesses to the confession testifies to such being the confession. Nanhelal (P. W. 6) was not asked any question about it and according to amarnath (P. W. 7), what he (the accused) said was ***** ex. P-28 is the seizure memorandum and according to it, the knife was seized on the accused-appellant Brijendrapalsinghs producing it from a corner of a room. ****" It could not, therefore, he said that it was in his exclusive possession. It has also not been proved that this knife was in possession of the accused-appellant Surajpalsingh at Jabalpur. It cannot, therefore, be said that it was the knife with which the crime had been committed. ****" It could not, therefore, he said that it was in his exclusive possession. It has also not been proved that this knife was in possession of the accused-appellant Surajpalsingh at Jabalpur. It cannot, therefore, be said that it was the knife with which the crime had been committed. Under the circumstances, the fact that the accused-appellant Brijendrapalsingh brought out from the corner of a room in the occupation of his father Sardarsingh at Bhojpur a knife which was stained with human blood and that he was with his brother the accused-appellant surajpalsingh at Jabalpur on the night between the 1st and 2nd of February 1966 till about 3 a. m. , when he left Jabalpur for Bhojpur, it cannot be held that this knife was used by the accused-appellant Surajpalsingh for committing the crime and that the accused-appellant Brijendrapalsingh had caused disappearance of the weapon of offence within the meaning of section 201 of the indian Penal Code. It is also significant that the Investigating Officer (P. W. 13) admitted that even before the accused-appellant Brijendrapalsingh had told him about the knife being at Bhojpur, he had come to know of the fact from the accused-appellant Surajpalsingh. The confession (Ex. P-17) by the accused-appellant Brijendrapalsingh thus loses all importance. Under the circumstances, we are of opinion that the accused-appellant Brijendrapalsingh is entitled to the benefit of doubt. ( 33. ) HIS appeal, therefore, is allowed. His conviction and sentence are hereby set aside. Orders accordingly.