AHER RAJA KHIMA vs. THE STATE OF SAURASHTRA

A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The case of Aher Raja Khima v. The State of Saurashtra, [1955] 2 S.C.R. 1285, centers around the critical question of whether a confession made under alleged police threat while in judicial custody can form the basis of a conviction. The appellant, Aher Raja Khima, was accused under Sections 302 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code for the alleged murder of Jetha Sida, who was the husband of a woman with whom the appellant had an illicit relationship. The Supreme Court considered whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal of the appellant by the Sessions Court and convicting him based mainly on a retracted confession.

The majority opinion, authored by Justice Vivian Bose and supported by Justice Chandrasekhara Aiyar, emphasized the necessity of substantial and compelling reasons to overturn an acquittal. It held that the confession was not voluntary due to the realistic possibility of police threats while the accused was under the apparent supervision of the same police officers. Conversely, Justice Venkatarama Ayyar dissented, asserting that the High Court rightly assessed the evidence and that there was no constitutional reason for the Supreme Court’s interference under Article 136.

The judgment reaffirms critical principles regarding the treatment of retracted confessions, the presumption of innocence, and the limited scope of appellate review in criminal cases, especially concerning appeals against acquittals.

Keywords:

Confession, Voluntariness, Judicial Custody, Section 417 CrPC, Article 136 Constitution of India, Presumption of Innocence, Appeal Against Acquittal

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title
Aher Raja Khima v. The State of Saurashtra

ii) Case Number
Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 1955

iii) Judgement Date
22 December 1955

iv) Court
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum
Justice Vivian Bose, Justice Venkatarama Ayyar, and Justice Chandrasekhara Aiyar

vi) Author
Justice Vivian Bose (majority); Justice Venkatarama Ayyar (dissent)

vii) Citation
[1955] 2 S.C.R. 1285

viii) Legal Provisions Involved

  • Section 417, Criminal Procedure Code, 1898

  • Sections 302 and 447, Indian Penal Code

  • Article 136, Constitution of India

  • Section 24, Indian Evidence Act, 1872

ix) Judgments overruled by the Case
None explicitly overruled

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects
Criminal Law, Constitutional Law, Evidence Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The case arose from the appeal by the State of Saurashtra against the acquittal of Aher Raja Khima by the Sessions Court in a murder case. The High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted the appellant, largely relying on a confession recorded by a Magistrate. The Supreme Court had to decide whether such reversal was permissible under the standards applicable to appeals against acquittals, especially when the confession was retracted and claimed to have been induced by threats during police custody.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellant was accused of murdering Jetha Sida, the husband of a woman named Sunder with whom he had a long-standing illicit relationship. Sunder was to be ceremonially sent to her marital home, and this allegedly angered the appellant. The prosecution contended that he murdered Jetha on the night of 18/19 May 1952 using an axe. The confession by the accused, along with circumstantial evidence such as motive, alleged presence near the scene, and discovery of a bloodstained axe and false beard, formed the crux of the prosecution’s case.

The Sessions Court, however, found that the confession was not voluntary, given that the accused was in a judicial lock-up managed by police guards and claimed to have been threatened by the police. It acquitted the accused. The High Court overturned this and convicted him. The matter reached the Supreme Court via special leave.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal by the Sessions Court under Section 417 of the CrPC.
ii. Whether the confession made by the accused was voluntary and could be relied upon.
iii. Whether the Supreme Court could interfere under Article 136 in such criminal appeals.

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that

The confession was involuntary and made under police threat. The appellant claimed police threatened him inside the judicial lock-up, which was under the same officers who investigated the case. He retracted the confession at the earliest opportunity and maintained that it was induced. The delay of ten days before recording the confession made him vulnerable to intimidation. The defence also argued that the circumstantial evidence such as sharpening of the axe and recovery of beard/mask was inconclusive. They relied on precedents such as Amar Singh v. State of Punjab, [1953] SCR 418 and Surajpal Singh v. State, [1952] SCR 193 to argue that strong and compelling reasons are needed to overturn acquittal, which were absent here[1].

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsels for Respondent submitted that

The confession was voluntary, as the Magistrate had granted ten days for reflection, and the accused did not complain of coercion at that time. The delay in recording showed a deliberate effort to avoid coercion. They argued that corroborative evidence supported the confession—motive, the discovery of a bloodstained axe, and presence near the scene. They contended that the High Court was right in reversing the acquittal, especially given the clarity of guilt established by the confession. They cited Pritam Singh v. The State, [1950] SCR 453 to support the power of appellate courts to reverse acquittals.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i. Section 417, Criminal Procedure Code (1898) – Appeal against acquittal
ii. Section 24, Indian Evidence Act (1872) – Voluntariness of confession
iii. Article 136, Constitution of India – Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court
iv. Sections 302 and 447, Indian Penal Code – Murder and criminal trespass

I) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

i. The majority held that a confession made while the accused was under a judicial lock-up, guarded by the same police involved in investigation, cannot be said to be voluntary without ruling out threats. The principle of benefit of doubt must apply. An appellate court must not reverse an acquittal unless compelling reasons exist. No such compelling reason was found in this case. The High Court erred in disregarding the Sessions Court’s finding without sufficient justification.

b. OBITER DICTA 

i. The mere fact that a confession is recorded by a Magistrate after a reflection period does not make it voluntary if the accused remained under the influence of the investigating officers.

c. GUIDELINES 

  • High Courts should not reverse acquittals under Section 417 CrPC without substantial and compelling reasons.

  • A confession must be shown to be voluntary under Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act.

  • Article 136 of the Constitution does not allow the Supreme Court to reappreciate facts unless grave injustice is caused.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment highlights the Supreme Court’s careful approach towards safeguarding the rights of the accused, particularly in cases of retracted confessions. The majority rightly held that the High Court overstepped its limits under Section 417 of CrPC by not giving due weight to the reasoning of the Sessions Judge. It reinforced the doctrine that the benefit of reasonable doubt and presumption of innocence remains paramount unless unequivocally rebutted. Justice Venkatarama Ayyar’s dissent reflects a stricter view of appellate court powers but the majority reaffirms the importance of procedural justice and fairness in criminal trials.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

[1] Amar Singh v. State of Punjab, [1953] SCR 418
[2] Surajpal Singh v. State, [1952] SCR 193
[3] Pritam Singh v. The State, [1950] SCR 453
[4] Sheo Swarup v. King-Emperor, [1934] LR 61 IA 398
[5] Nur Mohammad v. Emperor, AIR 1945 PC 151
[6] George Gfeller v. The King, AIR 1943 PC 211
[7] Mohindar Singh v. Emperor, [1932] LR 59 IA 233
[8] Taba Singh v. Emperor, [1924] ILR 48 Bom 515

b. Important Statutes Referred

Share this :
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
WhatsApp
Author picture