Corroborative evidence after acquittal can still support a murder conviction if no substantial injustice is shown.

Evidence relating to an acquitted robbery charge could still be relied on as corroborative material in the murder case, because an acquittal did not render the underlying facts unusable in another proceeding. The absence of search witnesses and the mode of proving recovery did not, by themselves, vitiate the evidence, as independent witnesses are desirable but not indispensable and the prosecution is not required to call every possible witness. On the material as a whole, no legal error or substantial injustice was shown, and the conviction and death sentence were upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether evidence relating to an acquitted robbery charge could still be used as corroborative material in deciding the murder conviction. (ii) Whether the absence of the search witnesses and the manner of proof of the recovery vitiated the conviction or justified interference.

Issue (i): Whether evidence relating to an acquitted robbery charge could still be used as corroborative material in deciding the murder conviction.

Analysis: An acquittal on the robbery charge did not establish that the underlying evidence was false in every respect. The evidence of recovery was before the Court for a different purpose as well, namely corroboration of the murder case. The fact that no appeal was taken against the robbery acquittal did not prevent the appellate court from assessing the same evidence for its corroborative value in the murder appeal. An acquittal would bar a second prosecution for the same offence, but it would not make the facts incapable of consideration in another proceeding.

Conclusion: The recovery evidence was competent for corroboration in the murder case, and the conviction could not be attacked on the ground of the robbery acquittal.

Issue (ii): Whether the absence of the search witnesses and the manner of proof of the recovery vitiated the conviction or justified interference.

Analysis: Presence of independent witnesses at a search is desirable and their absence may weaken the proof of recovery, but it does not always make the evidence inadmissible. Where the accused himself is said to have produced the articles, the special search provisions were not treated as governing the case in the manner contended. The Court also reiterated that the prosecution is not bound in every case to call all possible witnesses; the evidence must be assessed as a whole. No disregard of legal process or substantial injustice was shown, and the appellate court would not interfere merely because another view of the evidence was possible.

Conclusion: The objections relating to the search witnesses and proof of recovery failed, and no ground was made out for disturbing the conviction.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and death sentence were upheld, and no substantial or grave injustice was established to justify interference.

Ratio Decidendi: Evidence used to prove one offence may still be relied on for corroboration in another proceeding despite an acquittal on the first charge, and a criminal conviction will not be disturbed unless a legal error or substantial and grave injustice is shown.

---