Shrishail Nageshi Pare v. State of Maharashtra

Judgment

SHRISHAIL NAGESHI PARE :STA_TE OF MAHARASHTRA: March 25, 1985 [O. CmNNAP~A REDDY AND V. BALAWHNA ERADr,JJ.] Cri,;,tnal Procedure cOde J97J,' Section. JM Retracted confession oi accll$ed-When ;cV,fof.m basis of /111 con,lctiOn -Whether can form basis of corrvlctlon of co·Accused. _ Criminal Trial : · £vf'1enct of 1ru1h{uf .eµ »:llne1s-;Whether sufficient to_ warrant a cotrv/c .. The petitio~er was ~onvlctcd by the Sessions _ Judge· under Section 302. Jf~1 ~nd th~ 'QnViC\iOR W'IS confirmea by tho ffish Court, ' Plsmissin~ Ille Spceial Leave Petition, ' · HELP : ·I, The . e~idcnce of an eye witness; It accep'tcd !1 -,ufiict.;,1' 10 warrant conviction though in appropriate cases the Court may ai a nicas11r0 · of caution seek •= confirming citcumstances from other sources.

Bui ordl·: llUily, the evidence of a truthful eye wi!JlCss is sufficient without. anything moro to warrant a· eouviction and cannot tor instance be made to depend_ tor Its aoceptance on the . truthfiilncss of other Items of evidence lucb u recovery, • _of ~upous etc. at the instance or the accused by the police: [463A·BJ' · · . 2. A retracted confession by an accused may form the basis of a coDviction of that accused if it tteeives . some general corroboration from other independent sources: .

It cannot however, be the basis tor. convicting a co•. accused _though it may be taken into consideration •&ainst co-&CCUJCd •· · fl ii 13 ~nlirclr wronJ 19 \hiiik lh~I R ~9!lfc1sio11 fi!!l lc~~ P9l"li~~.· (463D·llj CJ D1 462> Jn the instant case, the High Court was wrong in treating the evidence of the eye witness as 'one of three legs of a tripod' which must collapse if any - of the other Legs collaPSCs.'· · :11 was; also· wrong in' holding that a confession cannot be the foundation of a conviction but can only constitute'a fourth leg to a tripod\ and that "the confession alone and by itself cannot prove the ' guilt of an accused."" [463C-D] CRIMINAL APPELLATE . JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 372 of 1985. From. the Judgment and Order dated 18/19.9.1984 of the Bombay[ ¥fg~;~o~r} }~ Cri,'"?i.~~l A_PP'?~~ N!''. ,~;,3 .~f,1,98~ , , , ,! S.B. Bhasme, A.B. Bhasme and M.A. Firoz for the Petitioner. ;, 'J ·, ......... ·The Order of the Court was delivered by ~-t·'.1;, ;- .. =.' _.: ·-·; .. ', 1 I Cm~APPA REDDY, J. This Special Leave Petition by the first accused in Session Case No. 134 of 1930 before the Sessions Judge, Sholapur whose conviction by the Sessions Judge under section 302 has been confirmed by the High Court, has to be dismissed-as it O 0 •" •" •' •.

0 restS ·enttrely ·on ·appreciation of evidence. While d1Sm1Ssmg the·. Special Leave Petition we are however, constraint to make a few' remarks abou~ some . of the observations of the High Court. In paragraph 18 of·' the· judgment' of; the High Court it has been said "the case of the prosecution stands< on·. the. pedestal "of a 'ti:ipc)ci' having the eye witness account of Shrimant and Nirmala as one leg: the discovery of axes. spear and a pair of trousers as th.e second leg and the animosity generated by high-handed behaviour of Malkari r~gar<Ji11g piy:rsion, of rain. '\}'ate~ ,.:is •the !hird_leg. ~The ~onfession ll!ad~,by a,ecus,d,N,o, j. Nogeshi ::which was subsequently retracted· forms the! additional' fourth' leg -of the ·tripod but it is' well settled• ttiat'the·confessional statement can n~ver be an eviderice···uponwbii::h'. to found-~ a' conviction. '

It can:· at· best rfurnish an additioriat·re~' . e11ro,rfewenfwhen .. t~e. !!thee ... evi~en~e., 15 cl,inchmg ,enough. t~ pr~· nounce a verdict of guilt.· The confessional statement alone and by itself would lead us nowhere ; if one of the legs of the tripod on . which' the prosecution bases its case. 'gives way,' the whole case like Humpty Dumpty'would come ~umbling· down ·arid ·the 'additional folirt!{feg.:....:t:hat is, the confession, will not; like.all the King's horses ~pyhe Kirig's men wo'!ld put Humpty Dumpty,to~ether," ,. , .. , J S. N. PARii •. MAHARASHTRA (dinnappa Reddy, f.) 4th The metaphor used by the judges is entirely misapplied and misleading. The evidence:of the eye_ witness;·if acc.epted, is sufficient to warrant conviction though in appropriate cases the Court may as a measure of caution seek some confirming circumstances from other sources.

But ordinarily, the evidence of a truthful eye witness is sufficient without anything more, to warrant a conviCtion and cannot, for instance, be made to• "depend for its acceptance on the truthfulness of other items of evidence such as recovery of weapons etc. at the instance of the accused by the police. The Judges of the High Court were wrong in · tre~ting • the evidence of eye witness as 'one of three legs of a tripod which must collapse if any qf the other legs collapses. Again the High Court iS wrong in thinking'that a confession cannot be the foundation of a conviction but can only constitute 'a fourth leg to a tripod'. This· ·statement has been repeated again in paragraph 30, where the High· Court has observed "the confession alone and by itself cannot' pr9ve' the guilt of an accused:" We are not a iittle surprised that' such a· statement should 'have. been made by the High Court.

We wish to make it clear ai:ufthis is· oniy to repeat what is so well established that a retracted confession by an accused may form the basis o( a conviction of that aceuse'd if it receives some general corroboration from 'oiher independent s6urc~s. It cannot however, be the basis for convicting co-accuseo though it niay be taken ·into · consideration against . co-accused· also; It is e~tirely wrong to think that a confession can lead nowhere. We"~·~;, sorry to fin~ such careless statements · in the judgment of a High Court. Special leave petition is dismissed. '""· i N.V.K. Petition dismiSsed ,. "'At . I~ D,,i