HEM RAJ V. THE STATE OF AJMER INSC 28; AIR 1954 SC 462; 1954 SCR 380

HEM RAJ V. THE STATE OF AJMER INSC 28

FACTS- On July 16, 1952, it happened. A businessman named Mangilal received a threatening letter purportedly from "Bhayankar Daku Dal," demanding ₹5,000 and threatening to kill him if the money was not paid or if the police were notified. When Mangilal's son brought the letter to the police, they did nothing. A pair of men visited Mangilal's store on July 17, 1952. One was wearing a blue suit, the other a khaki one. The person in blue demanded a response to the letter, and when Mangilal gave it to him, he fatally shot him. Four individuals were charged with murder, extortion, and conspiracy: Hem Raj, Hukum Singh, Milap Singh, and Abdul Hakim. The Sessions Court found Huku Singh guilty, but the other two were found not guilty. On appeal, Hem Raj's conviction was upheld, while Hukum Singh's was overturned. Hem Raj had admitted to the crime, but he then withdrew his admission and claimed that the police had forced him to do so. On applications for special leave, the case made its way to the Supreme Court. The State appealed against Hukum Singh's acquittal, and Hem Raj appealed against his conviction.

ISSUES- 1)Was Hukum Singh's conviction upheld by the evidence against him? 2)Did Hem Raj's confession follow the correct procedures and was it voluntary? 3)Did the confession receive enough independent confirmation?

HOLDINGS- The Court upheld Hem Raj's convictions for extortion under Section 386 IPC and murder under Section 302/34 IPC. The Court determined that the supporting data and evidence were sufficient and trustworthy. Raj's confession was deemed voluntary by the court. There was no indication of coercion or incentive, and the magistrate who recorded it complied with all statutory safeguards under Section 164 of the CrPC. Citing a dearth of substantial and reliable evidence connecting Hukum Singh to the crime, the Supreme Court maintained the High Court's decision to acquit him.

RATIONALE- The judges opinionated Hem Raj's confession as voluntary, thorough, and supported by independent evidence—such as eyewitness accounts and the seizure of incriminating object and the court upheld his conviction. The legitimacy of the confession was guaranteed by procedural safeguards outlined in Section 164 CrPC. Hukum Singh's acquittal, on the other hand, was upheld since his conviction was based only on Hem Raj's confession and lacked any supporting evidence, following the rule that a co-accused's confession is insufficient justification for conviction. The Court avoided interfering with concurrent judgements of lower courts and stressed the need for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This ruling expertly balances upholding justice with defending individual liberties. The Court demonstrates its commitment to justice and truth by carefully examining the voluntariness and verifiability of Hem Raj's confession. However, its reliance on independent proof for Hukum Singh highlights the sanctity of the rule that no one should be found guilty based just on suspicion or the unsubstantiated statements of a co-accused