Supreme Court: Unsafe to Convict Accused Based on Uncorroborated Testimony of Accomplice

Must Read

Bombay High Court Passes Order To Clarify and Modify Previous Order When State of Maharashtra Moved Praecipe

Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Shrikant D. Kulkarni had passed...

The European Court of Human Rights Orders Germany To Pay Non-Pecuniary Damages for Prison Strip-Searches 

A serving German prisoner was repeatedly stripped searched for non-legitimate purposes. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found...

Lack of Independent Witness Doesn’t Vitiate Conviction: Supreme Court

A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Dhiman v State of Himachal Pradesh clarified the law in...

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi,...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent...

Supreme Court Stays Order Restraining Physical Campaigns in the Madhya Pradesh Bye-Elections

On the 26th of October, a Bench was set up which comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and...

Follow us

The SC observed that it is unsafe to convict an accused only based on the uncorroborated testimony of his accomplice. The bench comprises of Justices R. F. Nariman, K.M. Joseph, and V. Ramasubramaniam. They held that an accomplice, to be believed by the Court, must be corroborated by the material facts.

Brief Facts of the Case

A 2-judge bench of Justices V. Gopala Gowda and Justice Arun Mishra presided over the case. They referred to the murder and abduction case of AIADMK leader M.K. Balan. The 3-judge bench of RF Nariman, KM Joseph, and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ agreed with Justice Mishra’s opinion. They upheld the conviction. Justice V. Gopala had held that for Section 109 of IPC, it is not enough for conspiracy as it has to take a step further. He said that it needs to prove that an act committed is in furtherance of that conspiracy. Whereas Justice Arun Mishra held that u/s 109 IPC, the abettor is liable to the same punishment. That is, which may be inflicted on the principal offender if the act of the latter is committed. That is in consequence of the abetment.

Arguments by the State

The accused made confessional statements u/s 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. These statements gave information which led to recoveries. The case of the prosecution was that the accused abducted and took the deceased to a factory. A large amount of money-motivated them to commit this crime because of a large amount of money. On non-acceptance of the demand of the accused, the accused killed the deceased on the factory’s first floor. The cremation of his body took place at the Corporation cremation ground on 01.01.2002. The accused roped in Prosecution Witness 33-an employee of a Government Hospital. It was for getting a false death certificate to prove the same. Further, a fictional name and a fake address were used to get the death certificate of the accused.

Arguments by the Appellant

The defence counsel submitted that the criminal conspiracy charges are incorrect. The Trial Court had acquitted the appellant and the co-accused of that charge. Then, he said that the prosecution based their case on the conspiracy of the co-accused, A-12. Since the acquittal of A-12 of the charge, the case of the prosecution failed.

The prosecution case was on the testimony of two accomplices of the appellant. Since they are accomplices, they are not trustworthy witnesses. The settled law is that the Court would not act on the depositions of accomplices. It cannot be done unless found reliable. Furthermore, there should be corroboration of their testimony from other reliable evidence.

Court’s Observations

Section 113 read with illustration (b) of Section 114 has a combined result. The Courts have evolved a rule with time. It is unsafe to convict an accused of the testimony of his accomplice. The evidence of an accomplice must point out the involvement of a particular accused. This link between the accomplice and the accused is of crucial significance.

The testimony would be enough if the other relevant evidence combined with it. This would make out a case against the accused.

Court’s Decision

The Court upheld the conviction of the appellant. They further agreed with the decision given in the 2-judge bench by Justice Arun Mishra.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

Latest News

Bombay High Court Passes Order To Clarify and Modify Previous Order When State of Maharashtra Moved Praecipe

Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Shrikant D. Kulkarni had passed an Order on 25th October...

The European Court of Human Rights Orders Germany To Pay Non-Pecuniary Damages for Prison Strip-Searches 

A serving German prisoner was repeatedly stripped searched for non-legitimate purposes. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found that Germany had violated the...

Lack of Independent Witness Doesn’t Vitiate Conviction: Supreme Court

A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Dhiman v State of Himachal Pradesh clarified the law in case of lack of independent...

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi, called for records of the...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent on immigrants to comply with. Background The...

Supreme Court Stays Order Restraining Physical Campaigns in the Madhya Pradesh Bye-Elections

On the 26th of October, a Bench was set up which comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and Justice Sanjiv Khanna. They heard...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention order of the husband of...

Supreme Court Asks Petitioner to Approach Bombay High Court in PIL for CBI Probe in Disha Salian Case

On the 26th of October 2020, the Apex Court heard the PIL praying for a CBI probe into the death of Disha Salian. The...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions, as well as shareholder disputes...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by P. Sankar & V. Sobana....

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -