.. SHRISHAIL NAGESHI PARE °
- sy 44s" ISTATE OF MAHARASHTRA’ >
"March 25, 1985 yore
[O. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND V. BALAKRISHNA Eran, JJ.]
Criminal Procedure Code 1973, Section 164
. Retracted confession of accused — When can form basis of his conviction
— Whether can an form basis of conviction of co-Accused,
“crt ae tion, ;
at ' te :
JP, and the gonviction was confirmed by the High Court,
"Dismisin the Spel L Leave Petition, ; ’
a
» its acceptance on the truthfulness of other items of evidence such as recov
«
‘The petitioner was , convicted by the Sessions “Judge: onder Section 300,
See tt 2 A retracted ¢ confession by an accused may ‘form the basis of a
* conviction of that accused if it receives . some general corroboration from other independent sources... Jt cannot however, be the basis for. convicting a co-.
accused though it may be taken into consideration against co- accused also.:
Tt ig entirely wrong to think that a confession can alread powhers” °° [463D-E]
Evidence of sruthful eve witness—Whether sufcent 4 to. warrant a convice a i eo -- HELD: 4, The evidence of en ‘tye witness, if accepted Is “suffictent . to watrant conviction though in appropriate cases the Court may asa measure: of caution seck some confirming circumstances from other sources. But ordie: narily, the evidence of a truthful eye witness is sufficient without. anything more to warrant a conviction and cannot for instance be made to depend for of weapons etc. at the instance of the accused by the Police. , | (463A-B]
A.
tee
462°. ~ SUPREME COURT REPORTS ; 11985] 3s.cr.
In the instant case, the High Court was wrong in treating the evidence of the eye witness as ‘one of three legs of a tripod’ which must collapse if any © of the other Legs collapsés,. It was; also wrong in’ holding that a confession cannot be the foundation of a conviction but can only constitute’a fourth leg to a tripod’, and that “the confession alone and by itself cannot prove the” guilt of an accused,” © ‘ : [463C-D}
CRIMINAL APPELLATE. ‘JORISDICTION = Special Leave Petition’ (Criminal) No. 372 of 1985,
From, the Judgment a and Order ‘dated 18/19.9.1984 of - the
. Bombay, High’ Court i in n Criminal Appeal No. 423 of 198t er
S.B. Bhasme,-A.B. Bhasme and M.A. Firoz for the Petitioner.
“The Order of the Court was delivered by , ay ees . “pet .
Vesbug ete perl oy a a Be, rh cr a ay
CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. This Special Leave Petition by the first accused in Session Case No. 134 of 1930 before. the Sessions Judge, Sholapur whose conviction by. the Sessions Judge under section 302
“has been confirmed. by the _ High Court, has to be dismissed as it rests” entirely “on ‘appreciation of ‘evidence. ‘ While dismissing the’. Special Leave Petition we are however, constraint to make a few remarks about some of the observations of the High Court. In > paragraph 18 of - the’ jidgment’ of! the High Court it has been said “the case of the prosécution stands” on” the’ pedestal “of a tripod’ having the eye witness account of Shrimant and Nirmala as one leg; the discovery of axes, spear anda pair of trousers as the second leg and the animosity generated by high-handed behaviour of Malkari regarding diversion of rain ,.water ,.as:. the third leg. ‘The confession
~ made by accused, No.: ]- Nogeshi-; : which. was, subsequently retracted:
forms the additional : fourth’ leg- of. the “tripod but it is well Settled?
that'the confessional statement can never be an evidence: upon ° ‘which’. to fdund./a’ conviction. * It ‘can: “at: best [ furnish an additional’ Tes, enforcement when” ‘the other, evidence’ is clinching enough . to pro-
“nounce a verdict of guilt. The confessional statement alone and by itself would lead us nowhere; if one of the legs of the tripod on
” ~ which’ the prosecution bases its case: ‘gives. way, ‘the whole case like
Humpty Dumpty ‘would come tumbling’ down ‘and ‘the additional fourth; ‘Jeg—that i is, the confession, will not, like all the King’s horses and al thé King’s men would d put Humpty. Dumpty together,’ Marca a ed rs
§. i. park ». ManaRasHTRA (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 463
The metaphor used by the judges is entirely misapplied and misleading. The evidence‘of the eye witness,-if accepted, is sufficient to warrant conviction though in appropriate cases the Court may as a measure of caution seek some confirming circumstaoces from other sources. But ordinarily, the evidence ofa truthful eye witness is sufficient without anything more, to warrant a conviction and cannot, for instance, be made to’ depend for its acceptance on the truthfulness of other items of evidence such as recovery of weapons etc. at the instance of the accused. by the police. The Judges of the High Court were wrong in ‘treating the evidence of eye witness as ‘one of three legs of a tripod which must collapse if any of the other legs collapses. Again the High Court is wrong in ‘thinking’ that a confession cannot be the foundation of a conviction but can only constitute ‘a fourth leg to a tripod’: This ‘statement has been repeated again in paragraph 30, where the High Court ‘has observed “the conféssion alone and by itself cannot prove’ the guilt of an “accused. iad We are not a little surprised that’ such a’ statement should ‘have. been made by the High Court. We wish to make it clear and this is only to repeat what is so well established that a retracted confession by
"an accused may form the basis of a conviction-of that accused if it receives some general corroboration from ‘other independent sources,
It cannot however, be the basis for convicting co-accused though it may be taken ‘into’ consideration “ against co-accused’ also: Iti is entirely wrong to think that a confession can Tead nowhere: We'are sorry to find such careless statements. in the Judgment of a a High Court.
Special feave petition is dismissed.
"3 ! Me’ Petition dismissed ae
N.V.K,