BHIVA DOULU PATIL versus STATE OF MAHARASHTA

Citation: [1963] 3 S.C.R. 830 · Decided: 29-08-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.L. KAPUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

196B 
Khandig1 Sham Bhat 
•• 
Atricu1'ural 
Ineome.tax Officer 
Suhba Raa J. 
--
Augual 21. 
830 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19631 
In the result the petition is dismissed with 
costs. 
It is common case that this decision 
will 
govern the other petition also, namely, Writ Peti-
tion No. 104 of 1961. The said petition also is dismis-
sed with costs. There will be one set of hearing fee. 
This order is without prejudice to the order for 
costs made on 16-3-1962. 
Petitions dismissed. 
BHIVA DOULU PATIL 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTJ:tA 
(J. L. KAPUR, A. K. SARKAR apd 
M. HrDAYATULLAH, JJ.) ' 
Criminal 1'rial-Approver-
Corroboration, if necessary 
qua each accused-Indian Evidence Act, 
1872(1 of 1872), 
88. 114,133 . 
.The appellant and R were convicted for murder on the 
testimony of an approver corroborated by the recovery at the 
instance of R of the knife with which the murder was commit-
ted and of the evidence that the appellant and R had got the 
knife prepared nine weeks before the murder. The appellant 
contended that his conviction was illegal as there was no corrobo-
ration of the testimony of the approver 
so far as he was 
concerned. 
Held, that the conviction of the appellant 
was not sus. 
tainable. The law required that there should be corrobora-
tion of the 
approver 
in material particulars and. qua each 
accused. 
The combined effect of ss. 133 and 114 illustration 
(b) is that though the conviction of an accused on the testi-
mony of an accomplice could not be said to be illegal, the 
courts will not accept such evidence without corroborat:ion in 
--
< 
L ..
..,. 
.J 
·-4 
SS.C.R. 
SOPREmj COURT REPORTS 
, , 
831 
material particulars. In the present case there W'\S no corro· 
boration of the testimony of the approver qua the appellant. 
The preparation of the knife nine weeks before the occurrence 
was no corroboration of the approver as within that time gap 
the appellant might have recanted; nor was the discovery of 
the knife at the instance of R sufficient to connect the appell. 
ant with the murder. The fact that the approver had made 
a confessional statement to liis brother could not be called 
corroboration of the approver. It was not sufficient for the 
conviction of the appellant that there was evidence to corro· 
borate the participation of R in the murder. 
Res. v. Boyes,( 1861)9 Cox, crim. cas,32, Bhuboni Sahu v. The 
King, (1949) L. R. 76 I. A. 147 and R. v. Baskerville, (1916) 
2 K. B. 658, referred to. 
CRIMINAL"fAPPELLATE JuRISDIOT!ON: Criminal 
Appeal No. 174
4 of1961. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment 
and order dated April 12/13, 1961, of the Bombay 
High Court in Or. A. No. 308 of 1961. 
G. O. Mathur, for the appellant. 
S. B. Jathar and R. N. Sachthey, for the 
respondents. 
1962. 
August 29. The Judgment of the 
Court was delivered by 
KAPUR, J,-This is an appeal against the 
judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay 
confirming the conviction of the appellant for an 
offence under s. 302, Indian Penal Code, read with 
s. 34 for the murder of one Lahu Vithu Patil on 
the night between May 23, and 24, 1960 at village 
Pasarde. 
Four persons Rama Krishna Patil accused 
No. 1, Bhiva Doulu Patil accused No. 2 (now 
appellant before us), Lahu Santu Patil accused No. 3 
and Deoba approver P.W.5 are alleged to have 
tken part in murder of Lahu Vithu Patil. Rama 
1962 
B hiva Doulu Pa'il 
v. 
Statt o' 
Malrara1htr 1 
Kapuf J 
Bhiva Doulu Patil 
v. 
State of 
Maha1aahlrD 
Kapur J. 
832 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] 
Krishna Patil accused No.I was convicted of 
murder and sentenced to death but on appeal his 
sentence was reduced to one of imprisonment for 
life. The appellant was convicted as above stated 
and sentenced to imprisonment for life. The third 
accused Lahu Bantu Patil was acquitted and the 
4th participant Deoba turned approver and is 
P.W.5. 
The case for the prosecution was that the 
appellant had a suspicion that the deceased had 
a liaison with his wife. He, the appellant, approa-
ched the approver and suggested that the deceased 
should be killed. This was on March 16, 1960. On 
March 17, 1960, Rama Krishna Patil accused No. I 
and appellant got a knife prepared by Nanu Santu 
Sutar P.W.7 from a crowbar. The deceased was 
a wrestler and he and his brother used to sleep in 
the fields and they also had dogs and for that 
reason the murder could not be committed for 
sometime. When rains set in, the deceased started 
sleeping at Patil's Talim (gymnasium). There, o

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.