Accomplice testimony and photostat evidence in smuggling conspiracy can be admissible when corroborated and independently supported.

A person not actually arraigned as an accused may be examined as a witness even if the testimony is self-incriminating, and the exclusion in the Indian Oaths Act does not extend to someone merely under investigation. Accomplice evidence is therefore admissible, subject to the usual caution and corroboration. Photostat copies of intercepted writings may be admitted where the originals are suppressed and the copies are shown to be faithful, and handwriting comparison based on such copies can also be accepted. Prior exposure to photographs does not necessarily vitiate identification where there is substantial independent corroboration. The use of one conspirator as a witness and the receipt of this evidence did not establish discrimination or a violation of constitutional guarantees.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a self-confessed participant in the smuggling conspiracy was a competent witness and could be administered oath notwithstanding the bar in the Indian Oaths Act, and whether her evidence could be received as accomplice evidence; (ii) whether photostat copies of intercepted writings and handwriting comparison based on such copies were admissible; (iii) whether the witness's identification of the accused after seeing their photographs was vitiated; and (iv) whether receipt of the evidence amounted to discrimination or violation of constitutional guarantees.

Issue (i): whether a self-confessed participant in the smuggling conspiracy was a competent witness and could be administered oath notwithstanding the bar in the Indian Oaths Act, and whether her evidence could be received as accomplice evidence.

Analysis: A person is rendered incompetent only when actually arraigned as an accused in a criminal proceeding. A person examined as a witness, though self-incriminating, remains a competent witness under the Evidence Act, and the protection against self-incrimination does not apply to voluntary testimony given in the witness box against others. The exclusionary clause in the Indian Oaths Act does not extend to a person merely under investigation. The evidence, being that of an accomplice, was admissible subject to the usual caution and corroboration.

Conclusion: The witness was competent, the oath was validly administered, and her accomplice evidence was admissible.

Issue (ii): whether photostat copies of intercepted writings and handwriting comparison based on such copies were admissible.

Analysis: Where the originals were suppressed and the photographic reproductions were shown to be faithful, the court accepted that a photograph may prove both the contents of a document and, in an appropriate case, authorship or handwriting. The use of such copies was especially justified in a conspiracy case where original correspondence had been withheld and the copies were authenticated through official channels.

Conclusion: The photostats and the expert comparison based on them were admissible.

Issue (iii): whether the witness's identification of the accused after seeing their photographs was vitiated.

Analysis: Prior showing of photographs can undermine identification where the prosecution depends upon that identification alone. Here, however, the prosecution had substantial independent material, including prior descriptions, connected documents, telephone records, visiting cards, and other corroborative circumstances. The identification was therefore not the sole basis of proof.

Conclusion: The identification evidence was not discarded as unreliable in the circumstances of the case.

Issue (iv): whether receipt of the evidence amounted to discrimination or violation of constitutional guarantees.

Analysis: The selection of one participant as a witness in a conspiracy case did not amount to arbitrary discrimination. The procedure did not offend the constitutional guarantees relied upon, and the use of accomplice evidence in this manner was not shown to be unconstitutional.

Conclusion: No violation of Articles 14 or 20 was established.

Final Conclusion: The convictions were supported by admissible evidence, the legal objections failed, and no constitutional infirmity was shown.

Ratio Decidendi: A person not actually arraigned as an accused may be examined as a witness despite self-incriminating admissions, and accomplice evidence, including corroborated photographic and documentary evidence in a conspiracy case, is admissible subject to judicial caution.

---