CHANDAN & OM PRAKASH versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [1988] 2 S.C.R. 599 · Decided: 12-01-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.L. OZA, L.M. SHARMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

CHANDAN & OM PRAKASH 
A 
-1 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
... • 
JANUARY 12, 1988 
[G.L. OZA AND L.M. SHARMA, JJ.] 
B 
t 
Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Ss. 114(6) and 133-Evidence of 
accomplice-Corroboration by independent evidence-Necessity for. 
f. 
Five persons were tried for the murder of a widow, out of which 
one turned approver. There was no direct evidence in the case. The only c 
''-f'-
evidence was the evidence of the approver and the other evidence 
regarding recovery of articles by three witnesses. 
'-( 
The trial court discarded the testimony of two witnesses who had 
• 
"' 
y 
identified some articles. The third witness, the son of the deceased and 
who had identified the articles was not examined at the trial. The court, 
however, convicted all the accused persons under s. 302 read with s. 34 
IPC. 
The High Court maintained the conviction of three persons on the 
finding that the evidence of identification was sufficient to corroborate 
the testimony of the approver. 
In the appeals by special leave by two of the accused, it was 
contended for the State that although the son of the deceased had not 
;., 
been examined at the trial, he had identified articles at the test identifi· 
cation and, therefore, that evidence was sufficient to corroborate the 
testimony of the accomplice. 
~' 
Allowing the appeais, 
" 
HELD: It is established as a rule of prudence that the testimony 
of an accomplice if it is thought reliable. as a whole conviction could only 
D 
E 
F 
be based if it is corroborated by independent evidence either direct or G 
circnmstantial connecting the accused with the crime. I 603A -BI 
Haroon Haji Abdulla v. State of Maharashtra, [1968] 2 SCR 641 
and RavinderSingh v. State of Haryana, (1975] 3 SCR 453, referred to. 
In the Instant case, the evidence of the son of the deceased could 
599 
H 
600 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[19881 2 S.C.R. 
A 
not be looked into because (i) what he identified and stated to the 
Magistrate, who conducted the identification parade, was only a 
hearsay evidence and that evidence could only be used to corroborate 
his testimony if he was examined at the trial, and (ii) what he stated to 
the Magistrate was not subjected to cross-examination and was at the 
back of the accused. Further, there is nothing about identification or 
B 
anything to connect the articles with the crime and in such a situation 
the evidence of recovery is not at all relevant as it is not connected with 
the crime. It could not, therefore, be used as evidence against the 
accused. [604C-DJ 
The only evidence against the accused was that of the appr-
C 
over. He has claimed to be a spectator at every moment but has 
not participated at any stage. Apart from it, the initial story ap-
pears also to be absolutely unnatural, as according to him he did 
not know anyone of the accused persons but a month before the inci-
dent they took him into confidence and told him to join them. The 
evidence of the witnesses as a whole does not appear to be natural 
D version and is not such which inspires confidence. Moreover, there 
was no corroboration at all from another independent circumstance 
or source of evidence. The conviction of the appellant, therefore, 
could not be maintained. [604F-H] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
"'( 
E 
N os. 106-107 of 1986. 
F 
G 
WITH 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 166-67/1986). 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.9.1985 of the High Court 
· 
of Rajasthan in D.B. Appeal No. 126/77 and Criminal Appeal Nos. 98°"'--i 
and 99 of 1977. 
1 
R.L. Kohli, Uma Dutt and R.C. Kohli for the Appellant. 
B.D. Sharma and M.I. Khan Additional Advocate General for 
the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
OZA, J. These two appeals arise out of the conviction of these 
two appellants alongwith one another under Section 302 read with 
Section 34 and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 100 
H 
each in Sessions Case No. 39/75 by Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu dated 
-
... 
·"" 
t 
'{ 
'( 
., 
.._ 
'r 
"' 
f 
CHANDAN v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [OZA, J.] 
601 
29th January 1977. Alongwith these two appellants Chandan and Orn 
Prakash one Babula! son of Onkar Mai was also convicted but we have 
no appeal before us on behalf of Babula!. 
The prosecution case was that Smt. Dhaka widow of Shri Hanu-
man Prasad and mother of Shri Gyarsi Lal was living all alone in her 
house (Haveli) at Ward No. 1, Khetadi. In the morning of 23rd 
August, 1975 a person engaged for grazin

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