HEM RAJ vs. THE STATE OF AJMER

Case Analysis

HEM RAJ vs. THE STATE OF AJMER

A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This landmark case, Hem Raj v. The State of Ajmer, decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in 1954, revolves around the admissibility and corroboration of confessional statements under criminal jurisprudence, particularly in murder and extortion cases. The Court, while dealing with two criminal appeals, clarified the scope of its powers under Article 136(1) of the Constitution of India, asserting that it would intervene only where exceptional and compelling injustice is apparent. Hem Raj was accused of conspiracy, extortion, and murder based on a confessional statement made before a magistrate and was ultimately convicted, whereas the co-accused, Hukum Singh, was acquitted for lack of substantive evidence. The judgment critically analyses the validity of confessions, the nature of corroborative evidence (especially evidence already in police possession), and the implications of delay in retracting confessions. The Supreme Court underscored that previously acquired police evidence can be used for corroboration and that mere suspicion or procedural irregularities are insufficient to nullify a confession if it meets legal voluntariness standards. It reaffirms essential principles under Sections 24-30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Sections 164 and 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and provides interpretive clarity on confessional jurisprudence.

Keywords: Confessional statement, corroborative evidence, Article 136 Constitution, voluntary confession, criminal appeal, retracted confession, murder, extortion, admissibility of evidence.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title: Hem Raj v. The State of Ajmer

ii) Case Number: Criminal Appeals Nos. 58 and 87 of 1953

iii) Judgement Date: 17 March 1954

iv) Court: Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum: Mehr Chand Mahajan, C.J., Vivian Bose J., Ghulam Hasan J.

vi) Author: Mehr Chand Mahajan, C.J.

vii) Citation: AIR 1954 SC 462; 1954 SCR 1133

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

Article 136(1) of the Constitution of India
Section 302, 386, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
Sections 164, 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
Sections 24 to 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

ix) Judgments overruled by the Case: None explicitly overruled

x) Case is Related to: Criminal Law, Constitutional Law, Evidence Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

This case emerged from a gruesome incident of extortion and murder in Bijainagar in 1952. The appellant Hem Raj, along with other accused, was alleged to have formed a criminal conspiracy to extort money and, upon non-compliance, shot and killed a merchant named Mangilal. The Supreme Court was approached through special leave under Article 136 after the Judicial Commissioner of Ajmer dismissed Hem Raj’s appeal and acquitted Hukum Singh. The appeal centered on the evidentiary value of a confessional statement made under Section 164 CrPC and whether corroboration through pre-existing police evidence was legally sufficient. The case thus brought forth key constitutional and evidentiary principles, including the admissibility of retracted confessions and the scope of judicial review in criminal convictions.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

On 16 July 1952, Mangilal, a merchant, received a threatening letter from a group styling themselves as “Bhayankar Daku Dal,” demanding ₹5,000 and threatening death upon failure. Despite informing the Superintendent of Police, no protection was offered. The following evening, 17 July 1952, two men dressed in khaki and blue suits approached Mangilal at his shop. After a brief exchange, one shot Mangilal dead using a Mauser pistol. The assailants fled, discarding the weapon and clothing.

A prompt FIR was lodged by eyewitness Nand Lal at 9:45 p.m. Police arrested Hem Raj and Hukum Singh on 26 July 1952. Hem Raj, while in judicial custody, gave a confessional statement on 30 July 1952 before a magistrate. Later, on 5 September 1952, he retracted it. The Sessions Judge convicted both, but the Judicial Commissioner acquitted Hukum Singh and upheld Hem Raj’s conviction, leading to cross-appeals.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

Whether the confession made by Hem Raj was voluntary and legally admissible under Section 24 of the Evidence Act?
Can a confessional statement be corroborated by material already in possession of the police?
Was the retraction of the confession valid and sufficient to negate its evidentiary value?
Does a delay or procedural irregularity in recording the confession affect its admissibility?
Should the Supreme Court interfere under Article 136(1) in a criminal matter where concurrent findings exist?

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that:

Dr. Tek Chand, appearing for Hem Raj, challenged the voluntariness of the confession, arguing that police pressure and inducement vitiated it. He claimed Hem Raj was detained illegally before formal arrest and was kept in the Superintendent’s house for four hours post-arrest. The defense cited Queen v. Thompson [(1893) 2 Q.B. 12] to argue that any inducement by police renders the confession inadmissible. They asserted that the Magistrate recorded the statement in jail without disclosing his identity or following proper procedure under Section 164 CrPC, making the confession irregular and unreliable. Additionally, they contended that the confession lacked independent corroboration, especially since much of the corroborative material predated the confession and was already with the police. The retraction dated 5 September 1952, they argued, further weakened its evidentiary value. Finally, it was alleged that there was no new information or discovery post-confession, discrediting the claim of voluntary disclosure.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Respondent submitted that:

The State rebutted the claim of coercion, highlighting that Hem Raj confessed after being in judicial custody for over 36 hours and was free from police influence. The Magistrate followed due process and confirmed Hem Raj’s awareness of his rights and voluntariness before recording the statement. The confession was detailed, self-incriminating, and contained information unknown to police, including the mechanics of the murder and the identities of co-conspirators. The State emphasized the recoveries from Hem Raj’s house, including a hat, pistol, cartridges, mask, and blue clothing—independently corroborating the confession. They cited AIR 1931 Oudh 166 (Mata Din v. Emperor) only to differentiate it, asserting that the judgment does not preclude corroboration via pre-existing evidence. They further argued that concurrent findings by two lower courts regarding the voluntary nature of the confession merited non-interference under Article 136, which demands exceptional circumstances to justify Supreme Court review.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

Article 136(1) of the Constitution of India – Discretionary power of the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal
Section 164 CrPC, 1898 – Recording of confessions and statements
Section 342 CrPC, 1898 – Examination of the accused
Sections 24 to 30, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Admissibility and evidentiary value of confessions
Section 302 IPC – Murder
Section 386 IPC – Extortion by threat of death
Section 34 IPC – Common intention

I) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

i) The Supreme Court held that voluntariness of a confession must be judged on surrounding circumstances. Mere custodial irregularity or delay does not invalidate a confession unless material inducement or coercion is proven. The Magistrate complied with procedural requirements, including informing the accused of his rights and consequences. The recovery of arms and clothing, made both before and after the confession, sufficiently corroborated its material particulars. Evidence already in police possession can be used to corroborate confessional statements. Hence, the conviction under Sections 302/34 and 386 IPC stood confirmed.

b. OBITER DICTA

i) The Court remarked that merely obtaining special leave under Article 136 does not entitle an appellant to a complete re-litigation of facts. It emphasized that only grave and exceptional circumstances justify a re-evaluation of facts already adjudicated by lower courts. The Court further commented that confessions recorded in jail, though irregular, do not automatically invalidate them if made voluntarily and properly recorded.

c. GUIDELINES

Confessions under Section 164 CrPC must be recorded with strict compliance, but non-substantial procedural lapses do not vitiate them.
Evidence in police possession before a confession can corroborate the confession if it establishes material particulars.
Courts should avoid interfering under Article 136 unless there is gross miscarriage of justice.
Retracted confessions must be evaluated against contemporaneous evidence, including delay in retraction and details provided.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This judgment reaffirms foundational principles of criminal jurisprudence in India relating to confessional evidence. It offers a robust interpretation of Section 164 CrPC and Sections 24-30 of the Indian Evidence Act, clarifying that corroborative material need not arise solely after the confession. The Court’s insistence on procedural fairness, judicial discretion, and the gravity of facts before invoking Article 136 establishes strong precedential value. The Supreme Court’s approach here balances accused rights with effective criminal justice administration, strengthening the evidentiary threshold without encouraging hyper-technical acquittals. The exoneration of Hukum Singh also demonstrates judicial restraint and fidelity to principles of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred