In this case, eight persons were accused of murder out of which four were acquitted and the remaining was convicted by the court in charge of the murder. One of the convicted accused appealed to the court against his conviction. There were three pieces of evidence available in the court on the basis of which the accused was convicted.
- Evidence of an accomplice.
- Confession of another accused person which implicated the name of appellant.
- Recovery of cloth of deceased and an instrument of cutting grass on the basis of accomplice’s evidence.
OBSERVATION MADE BY THE APEX COURT:
- Section 133 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 says that a conviction isn’t illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of accomplice.
- Section 133 read with illustration (b) of section 114 says that evidence of accomplice is unworthy of trust, unless it is corroborated in material particular.
- Corroboration of accomplice evidence is more a rule of prudence than the rule of evidence. This is a rule of care and caution which requires some corroboration in material particulars.
- The corroboration needed not only for provision that the offence had been committed, but also for proving that such an offence was committed by the accused. It confirms the identity of person with respect to the offence.
- The previous statement of an accomplice to magistrate under section 164 of CRPC cannot be used to corroborate the evidence of accomplice. Because it’s not an independent evidence. Repetition of statement under section 164 of CRPC and section 133 of IEA doesn’t make it free from taint and doubt.
- Confession of co-accused can be admissible as independent evidence. If there is no scope for previous concert.
- It’s not prohibited to base the conviction on uncorroborated testimony of accomplice but it’s a rule of prudence to corroborate the evidence of accomplice on material aspects as to incriminate accused.
DECISION:
The court upheld the appeal of the accused of acquittal. In this case:
- Evidence of accomplice not corroborated by independent evidence.
- There was a time for previous concert.
- Previous statement of approver himself cannot be taken for corroborating his evidence under section 133 of Indian Evidence Act,1872.