Nishikant Jha v State of Bihar

Share & spread the love

The judgement in Nishikant Jha v State of Bihar establishes that a confession with both exculpatory and inculpatory elements can be dissected by the court to determine the veracity of each part. The case underscores the importance of corroborating circumstantial evidence with other forms of proof to arrive at a just conclusion. The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the High Court’s conviction of Nishikant Jha highlights the meticulous evaluation of evidence required in criminal cases.

Background of Nishikant Jha v State of Bihar

On October 12, 1961, Nishikant Jha, a student of Jhajha High School, was charged with the murder of Jai Prakash Dubey, a fellow student from the same school and robbing him of Rs. 34. The incident took place on the Barauni-Sealdah Passenger train. As the train reached Jasidih Station, Anil Kumar Roy attempted to board the train but was unable to enter the compartment where the crime occurred and thus entered another compartment.

The dead body of Jai Prakash Dubey was discovered in the lavatory of the train, with his neck cut and covered in blood. The cause of death was determined to be bleeding and shock from homicidal injuries. Ram Kishore Pandey (PW 17) saw Nishikant Jha washing his bloodstained clothes near the Patro River later that evening. Upon questioning, Jha claimed his injuries were caused by a cowherd who assaulted him with glass and stole his money.

Upon hearing about the murder, Pandey and others suspected Jha and started searching for him. They found him traveling in a bullock cart towards his sister’s village, Roshan and took him into custody.

Facts of Nishikant Jha v State of Bihar

Nishikant Jha was accused of murdering Jai Prakash Dubey, a Class X-B student from Jhajha High School, whose body was found in the lavatory of the Barauni-Sealdah train. After being seen washing bloodstained clothes, Jha was apprehended and his statement was recorded under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, where he pleaded not guilty.

Jha’s statement included the following points:

  1. He boarded a first-class compartment of the Barauni-Sealdah train, already occupied by an unknown person.
  2. At Simultala, Lal Mohan Sharma, a resident of Deoghar, entered the compartment.
  3. At Jasidih Station, Jha attempted to alight but was prevented by Sharma.
  4. After the train left Jasidih, Sharma assaulted the unknown person in the lavatory.
  5. Jha tried to intervene and was injured by a knife.
  6. Sharma threatened to kill Jha if he opened the compartment door or window.
  7. Sharma killed the unknown person and later jumped out of the train near Mathurapur.
  8. Fearing arrest, Jha also jumped out of the train near the Patro River and fled.
  9. Jha washed his clothes in the river and was later apprehended while traveling in a bullock cart.

Issues Raised

The issues raised in Nishikant Jha v State of Bihar were:

  1. Whether the statement given by the accused and recorded by the Village Mukhiya before his arrest was admissible as evidence.
  2. Whether the court could reject the exculpatory part and accept the inculpatory part in convicting the accused.

Appellant’s Contentions

The appellant in Nishikant Jha v State of Bihar argued that the statement was not voluntarily made and therefore inadmissible. The High Court noted that there was no suggestion of coercion or threats made to the appellant when he was taken to the Mukhiya. The appellant’s claim of being forced to sign a blank paper undermined his assertion of being threatened.

The appellant also pointed out discrepancies between his footprints and fingerprints and those found in the compartment. However, the High Court dismissed this argument, noting that many people had entered the compartment before the police took charge.

Respondent’s Contentions

The respondent in Nishikant Jha v State of Bihar argued that the acceptance of Jha’s statement that he was present with the victim in the same compartment was sufficient to prove his guilt, if the part implicating Lal Mohan Sharma was rejected. The appellant admitted to being at the crime scene but claimed to be a helpless spectator.

The respondent contended that it was implausible for Sharma to prevent Jha from alighting at Jasidih only to have a witness. There was no motive for Sharma to commit the crime and it was unlikely he would not have also tried to kill Jha. The appellant’s injuries and his claim of a scuffle with a herdsman were also found to be unconvincing.

Nishikant Jha v State of Bihar Judgement

Justice G.K. Mitter delivered the judgement, rejecting the appellant’s exculpatory statement due to its inherent improbability and contradiction with other evidence. The Supreme Court considered the following circumstantial evidence:

  1. The appellant was seen washing bloodstained clothes.
  2. He was carrying bloodstained clothes and books.
  3. He was found with a 9-inch knife.
  4. The medical report indicated the wounds on the deceased were caused by a knife.

The court held that the appellant’s confession was contradictory and rejected the exculpatory parts. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court’s sentence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court in Nishikant Jha v State of Bihar referred to Roscoe’s book on criminal evidence, which supports the idea that a confession can be partially believed and partially rejected. Previous cases cited included:

  • Hanumant v. State of M.P.
  • Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab
  • Emperor v. Balmukund
  • Rex v. Clews
  • Narain Singh v. State of Punjab

The court in Nishikant Jha v State of Bihar concluded that it is within the court’s discretion to consider both exculpatory and inculpatory parts of a confession. Circumstantial evidence, though primary, must be corroborated with other types of evidence.

Nishikant Jha v State of Bihar Summary

In the case of Nishikant Jha v State of Bihar (1968), Nishikant Jha, a student, was charged with the murder of his classmate Jai Prakash Dubey on a train. Jha was found washing bloodstained clothes and initially claimed self-defence against another assailant, Lal Mohan Sharma. However, his statements were inconsistent and contradicted by other evidence, including the presence of a bloody knife and medical reports.

The Supreme Court in Nishikant Jha v State of Bihar upheld the High Court’s conviction, rejecting Jha’s exculpatory claims as implausible. The court emphasised the need to corroborate circumstantial evidence with other proofs and determined that Jha’s confession and the surrounding evidence conclusively proved his guilt.


Attention all law students!

Are you tired of missing out on internship, job opportunities and law notes?

Well, fear no more! With 45,000+ students already on board, you don't want to be left behind. Be a part of the biggest legal community around!

Join our WhatsApp Groups (Click Here) and Telegram Channel (Click Here) and get instant notifications.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

LawBhoomi
Upgrad