TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Conviction upheld based on accomplice testimony & corroboration with emphasis on need for corroborating evidence.</h1> <h3>HAROON HAJI ABDULLA Versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA</h3> HAROON HAJI ABDULLA Versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA - 1999 (110) E.L.T. 309 (SC), [1968] 2 SCR 641 Issues Involved:1. Admissibility and corroboration of accomplice testimony.2. Use of statements made by co-accused under Section 171A of the Sea Customs Act.3. Legal validity of retracted confessions.4. Conviction based on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice.Detailed Analysis:1. Admissibility and Corroboration of Accomplice Testimony:The primary issue in this case was whether the testimony of Kashinath (P.W. 1), an accomplice, could be used to convict Haroon. The court noted that Kashinath's testimony was simple and credible, and both the Magistrate and the High Court accepted it. The court emphasized that corroboration of accomplice evidence is necessary as a rule of prudence, not law. This corroboration was found in the statements made by Bengali and Noor Mohammad to the Customs authorities. However, the court did not use Kashinath's previous statement to corroborate his testimony, as it would amount to self-corroboration, which is not permissible. The court also highlighted that the discrepancies in Kashinath's statements were minor and did not affect the overall credibility of his testimony.2. Use of Statements Made by Co-Accused Under Section 171A of the Sea Customs Act:The court examined the statements made by Bengali and Noor Mohammad under Section 171A of the Sea Customs Act. These statements were not confessions recorded by a Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but were still considered admissible. The court scrutinized these statements to ensure they were made voluntarily and not under duress. Bengali's statement was considered relevant and used to corroborate Kashinath's testimony, while Noor Mohammad's statement was not relied upon as his trial was separated. The court held that Bengali's statement, which implicated Haroon, could be used as corroborative evidence.3. Legal Validity of Retracted Confessions:The court addressed the issue of retracted confessions, noting that both Bengali and Noor Mohammad had retracted their statements alleging duress and torture. However, these retractions came months later, and the court found them unconvincing. The court referred to previous judgments, including Ram Prakash v. State of Punjab, which stated that retracted confessions could still be considered if corroborated. The court emphasized that while retracted confessions are weak evidence, they can still be used with caution and corroboration.4. Conviction Based on the Uncorroborated Testimony of an Accomplice:The court reiterated that under Section 133 of the Evidence Act, a conviction based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice is not illegal. However, the court followed the rule of prudence, requiring corroboration in material particulars. The court found that Kashinath's testimony was corroborated by Bengali's statement, which was made independently and without prior concert. The court also noted that Haroon's conduct, such as his reluctance to make a statement until he saw what others had said, was peculiar and indicative of his involvement in the smuggling operation.Conclusion:The court concluded that there was sufficient corroboration of Kashinath's testimony from Bengali's statement, and there was no reason to interfere with the conviction. The appeal was dismissed, and Haroon was ordered to surrender to his bail.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
