Privy Council stresses caution with accomplice evidence, emphasizing need for independent corroboration

Bhuboni Sahu Versus The King

Bhuboni Sahu Versus The King - TMI Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility and reliability of accomplice evidence
2. Corroboration of accomplice testimony
3. Use of Section 164 statements and Section 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
4. Role and weight of the confession of a co-accused under Section 30 of the Evidence Act

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Admissibility and Reliability of Accomplice Evidence:
The judgment discusses the legal framework in India concerning the evidence provided by accomplices. It notes that even before the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the law in India was similar to that in England, as established in R. v. Elahee Buksh. Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act stipulates that an accomplice is a competent witness against an accused, and a conviction is not illegal merely because it is based on uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. However, Illustration (B) to Section 114 advises that the court may presume an accomplice to be unworthy of credit unless corroborated in material particulars. The courts in India have interpreted this to mean that while acting on uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice is not illegal, it is generally unsafe to do so unless corroborated in material respects.

2. Corroboration of Accomplice Testimony:
The judgment emphasizes that the evidence of an accomplice should be corroborated by independent evidence in material particulars before it can be acted upon. The court should not rely solely on the testimony of one accomplice to corroborate another. In the present case, the High Court recognized that it would be unsafe to rely on the evidence of the approver, who had given contradictory statements, unless corroborated by independent evidence. The High Court found sufficient independent corroboration in the discovery of the deceased's cloth and the production of the khantibadi, but the Privy Council disagreed, stating that neither the cloth nor the khantibadi sufficiently implicated the accused.

3. Use of Section 164 Statements and Section 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The approver's statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was discussed. Such a statement cannot be used as substantive evidence but can support or challenge the evidence given in court. The Sessions Judge brought the evidence given before the committing magistrate on record under Section 288, making it evidence in the case for all purposes. The High Court preferred the approver's evidence given before the committing magistrate over his testimony in the Sessions Court, but the Privy Council found that the statement under Section 164 did not amount to the necessary corroboration.

4. Role and Weight of the Confession of a Co-accused under Section 30 of the Evidence Act:
Section 30 of the Evidence Act allows the court to consider the confession of a co-accused against other accused persons. However, such confessions are considered weak evidence as they are not given on oath, in the presence of the accused, nor subject to cross-examination. The Privy Council affirmed the view that a co-accused's confession can only support other evidence and cannot be the sole basis for a conviction. In this case, the confession of Trinath, another accomplice, was retracted and did not provide sufficient corroboration for the approver's evidence. The Privy Council emphasized the necessity for independent evidence implicating the accused to avoid the risk of false implications.

Conclusion:
The Privy Council concluded that the conviction of the appellant could not stand due to the lack of sufficient corroboration of the accomplice's testimony by independent evidence. The judgment highlights the importance of corroboration and the cautious approach courts must take when dealing with accomplice evidence and confessions of co-accused.