Supreme Court acquits appellants, emphasizing need for corroborative evidence and presumption of innocence.

HARICHARAN KURMI Versus STATE OF BIHAR

HARICHARAN KURMI Versus STATE OF BIHAR - 1964 AIR 1184, 1964 (6) SCR 623 Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under Section 396 IPC.
2. Admissibility and use of co-accused's confession as evidence.
3. Corroborative evidence to support the confession.
4. Enhancement of sentence from life imprisonment to death penalty.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction under Section 396 IPC:
The appellants were charged with committing dacoity and murder under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Judge convicted all six accused, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The Patna High Court upheld the conviction for five of the accused, acquitting one (Joginder Singh) due to lack of evidence. The High Court also enhanced the sentence of the two appellants from life imprisonment to death, based on their significant involvement in the crime as indicated by confessions from co-accused and corroborative evidence.

2. Admissibility and Use of Co-Accused's Confession as Evidence:
The primary legal issue was whether the High Court erred in treating the confession of co-accused Ram Surat Choudhury as substantive evidence against the appellants. The Supreme Court noted that Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act allows a confession made by one accused to be taken into consideration against a co-accused. However, it emphasized that such a confession is not substantive evidence under Section 3 of the Act. The Court reiterated that a confession can only lend assurance to other evidence and cannot be the sole basis for conviction.

3. Corroborative Evidence to Support the Confession:
The prosecution relied on the confessions of three accused and the discovery of bloodstained clothes and other circumstantial evidence. The High Court believed that the bloodstains found on the clothes of the appellants and at the crime scene corroborated the confessions, thus justifying the conviction. The Supreme Court, however, found this evidence insufficient to independently establish the prosecution's case. It emphasized that the confessions should only be used to corroborate other substantial evidence, not as primary proof.

4. Enhancement of Sentence from Life Imprisonment to Death Penalty:
The High Court enhanced the sentence of the two appellants from life imprisonment to death, based on the significant role they allegedly played in the crime as per the confessions. The Supreme Court scrutinized this decision, pointing out that the High Court's reliance on the confessions as primary evidence was flawed. The Court underscored that the true legal approach requires other evidence to be satisfactory before using a confession for corroboration. Given the lack of substantial evidence, the enhancement of the sentence was deemed unjustified.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the convictions and death sentences of the appellants. It reaffirmed that the confession of a co-accused cannot be treated as substantive evidence and must only be used to corroborate other reliable evidence. The lack of sufficient corroborative evidence led to the acquittal of the appellants, emphasizing the principle that suspicion, however grave, cannot replace proof in criminal jurisprudence. The appellants were ordered to be acquitted, upholding the presumption of innocence.

Appeals allowed.