In the case of Pyare Lal Bhargava vs State Of Rajasthan on 22 October, 1962, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgment that clarified the interpretation of theft under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the evidentiary value of a retracted confession.
Facts of the Case
Pyare Lal Bhargava, a Superintendent in the Chief Engineer’s office, was accused of removing a file from the Secretariat through a clerk, taking it home, and making it available to his friend, the co-accused, who removed certain documents by substituting others. The file was returned to the office the next day. Bhargava made a confession when the Chief Engineer threatened that if he did not disclose the truth, the matter would be placed in the hands of the Police. This confession was later retracted.
Issues Raised
The case raised several key issues. First, whether the confession made by Bhargava was voluntary and could be considered as evidence. Second, whether the retracted confession could form the legal basis of a conviction. Third, whether the actions of Bhargava constituted theft under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Court’s Observations and Judgment
The Court held that section 24 of the Evidence Act waives the stringent rule of proof as laid down by section 3 of the Act and requires the court to form a prima facie opinion on the evidence and circumstances of the particular case whether a confession should or should not be excluded as being involuntary. It was observed that it is not possible to lay down any inflexible standard and the Supreme Court, acting under Article 136 of the Constitution, would not ordinarily differ from the concurrent findings arrived at by the courts below.
The Court further observed that a retracted confession may form the legal basis of a conviction if the court is satisfied that it was true and voluntarily made. As a general rule of practice, however, it is unsafe to rely upon a confession, much less a retracted confession, unless the court is satisfied that the retracted confession was true, voluntarily made, and corroborated in material particulars.
On the issue of theft, the Court held that to constitute theft, the loss caused need not be permanent. Even temporary dispossession, though the person taking the property intended to restore it, may constitute theft. Illustrations (b) and (1) of section 378 of the Indian Penal Code clearly show that a temporary deprivation of another person of his property may cause wrongful loss to him.
The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the facts found in this case clearly bring them within the four corners of section 378 of the Indian Penal Code, and therefore, the courts have rightly held that Bhargava had committed the offence of theft.