TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (11) TMI 600
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r offence punishable under Section 412 IPC. 3. The High Court did not find any substance in the appeals and dismissed the same as noted above. 4. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: On 8.1.1992, Gayatri Devi, wife of the informant, had gone to Pandra Agricultural Market by her Ambassador car bearing registration No. AAY 7375 and from there she left for her residence at about 8 PM after collecting the sale proceeds of the day of shop Nos.244 to 251. The driver of the car, Laxmi Paswan, who was one of the accused, was driving the car. Gayatri Devi after collecting a sum of Rs. 1,84,405/- did not return to her house, the informant informed Sukhdeo Nagar P.S. regarding the missing of his wife and the driver of the car, Laxmi Paswan. Laxmi Paswan was employed by the informant as the driver of his car on the recommendation of the previous driver, namely, Rajendra Choudhary. When the wife of the informant as well as the driver did not return till night, the informant, on the next morning i.e. on 9.1.1992, submitted a written report alleging therein that Laxmi Paswan, driver of the car, in collusion with anti-social elements, abducted his wife and car in order to kill her and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e. Thereafter, both the State and the accused persons preferred appeal against the impugned judgment and the High Court, by its judgment dated 28th July, 1993, set aside the judgment of conviction passed by the VIth Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi and the case was remanded to the Court of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi for fresh commitment proceeding and learned C.J.M. was directed to examine Lalit Sanga, the approver, (PW6), as prosecution witness in accordance with law and procedure. After remand of the case, the learned C.J.M. examined approver Lalit Sanga under Section 306 Cr.P.C. and thereafter committed the case to the Court of Sessions by order dated 19.2.1997 and after remand of the case, the case was registered as Sessions Trial No.156/97. The Learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi transferred the case to another Court for holding the trial of the accused persons. On receipt of the record, charges were framed against the accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 396, 412 and 120 (B) IPC. 5. Trial proceeded and in the course of trial the trial court recorded evidence of twenty-three witnesses, besides documentary evidence and material exhibi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short the 'Evidence Act'). Accused Lalit Sanga had not confessed to his active participation in the occurrence. His evidence is also not fully truthful. 8. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand supported the impugned judgment. 9. The High Court noted that the order of CJM was not set aside. What was set aside partly was that Lalit Sanga was examined but not cross examined and his statement was not recorded in the presence of the accused. That part of the order has been complied with and Lalit Sanga was examined in the presence of the accused and he was also cross examined and thereafter case was committed to the Court of Sessions. 10. We shall deal with this part of the appeal later. It is to be noted that learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted that the procedure mandated under Section 306 Cr.P.C. has been fully complied with. 11. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that not only has there been compliance with the requirements of Section 306 Cr.P.C. but also Section 133 read with Section 114 (b) of the Evidence Act. 12. Sections 133 and 114 (b) of the Evidence Act read as follows: "133. Accomplice- An accompli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lice but the rule of prudence embodied in illustration (b) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act strikes a note of warning cautioning the Court that an accomplice does not generally deserve to be believed unless corroborated in material particulars. In other words, the rule is that the necessity of corroboration is a matter of prudence except when it is safe to dispense with such corroboration must be clearly present in the mind of the Judge. [See Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar (AIR 1994 SC 2420)]. 16. Although Section 114 illustration (b) provides that the Court may presume that the evidence of an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless corroborated, "may" is not must and no decision of Court can make it must. The Court is not obliged to hold that he is unworthy of credit. It ultimately depends upon the Court's view as to the credibility of evidence tendered by an accomplice. 17. In Rex v. Baskerville (1916 (2) KB 658), it was observed that the corroboration need not be direct evidence that the accused committed the crime; it is sufficient if there is merely a circumstantial evidence of his connection with a crime. 18. G.S. Bakshi v. State (Delhi Administration) (AIR 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 22. The word 'corroboration' means not mere evidence tending to confirm other evidence. In DPP v. Hester( 1972) 3 All ER 1056, Lord Morris said : "The purpose of corroboration is not to give validity or credence to evidence which is deficient or suspect or incredible but only to confirm and support that which as evidence is sufficient and satisfactory and credible; and corroborative evidence will only fill its role if it itself is completely credible ......" 23. In D.P.P. v. Kilbourne (1973) 1 All ER 440, it was observed thus: "There is nothing technical in the idea of corroboration. When in the ordinary affairs of life one is doubtful whether or not to believe a particular statement one naturally looks to see whether it fits in with other statements or circumstances relating to the particular matter; the better it fits in the more one is inclined to believe it. The doubted statement is corroborated to a greater or lesser extent by the other statements or circumstances with which it fits in." 24. In R. V. Baskerville( supra), which is a leading case on this aspect, Lord Reading said : "There is no doubt that the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice is admissibl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y that there should be independent confirmation of every material circumstance in the sense that the independent evidence in the case, apart from the testimony of the complainant or the accomplice, should in itself be sufficient to sustain conviction. As Lord Readings says - 'Indeed, if it were required that the accomplice should be confirmed in every detail of the crime, his evidence would not be essential to the case, it would be merely confirmatory of other and independent testimony.' 27. All that is required is that there must be some additional evidence rendering it probable that the story of the accomplice (or complainant) is true and that it is reasonably safe to act upon it. 28. Secondly, the independent evidence must not only make it safe to believe that the crime was committed but must in some way reasonably connect or tend to connect the accused with it by confirming in some material particular the testimony of the accomplice or complainant that the accused committed the crime. This does not mean that the corroboration as to identify must extend to all the circumstances necessary to identify the accused with the offence. Again, all that is necessary is that t....