HAROON HAJI ABDULLA versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [1968] 2 S.C.R. 641 · Decided: 14-12-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
HAROON HAJJ ABDULLA 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
December 14, 1967 
641 
• 
[M. lIIDAYATULLAH AND C. A. VAIDIAUNGAM, JJ.] 
Evidence Act (1 of 1872), ss. 30, ll4(b) and 133-Confessiott of 
r:o-accused-Extent to which it could be used as corrobqration of accom 4 
plice evidence. 
Gold was smuggled into India by bringing it in steam launches from 
places on the Persian Gulf, transhipping it into Indian boats standing out 
at sea, then bringing it to the Indian shores and by being taken away by 
pexsons waiting for it. There was a raid on the night of August 13, 1961 
while a consignment was being brought in. Many of tlje smugglers were 
arrested, th~ case was investigated into, and on the 14th. the Customs 
Authorities served notices upon the suspects under s. 171A of the Sea 
Customs Act. On the 15th, two Customs Officers recorded the statements, 
in answer to the notices. from two of the suspects K and B, independently, 
and almost simultaneously. The statement of K implicated himself and 
the appell"ant in the smuggling and the 9latement of B cqntained a con-
fession of his own guilt as well as the implication of the appellant in the 
smuggling. The appellant himself was 
served . with a: notice 
by the. 
Customs authorities. but he was unwiJling to make a statement till be 
had seen what the others had said. 
The appdlant and 17 others were tried for ilhe offence of conspiracy 
to smuggle gold into India. At the trial, K ·was a witness for the prose 4 
cution and B, who was jointly tried with the appellant retracted the con-
fession he made before th~ Customs 
authorities alleging 
duress 
and 
torture. 
He however died before judgment was delivered but after the 
conclusion of the trial of the case. 
Some of the accused were. acquitted 
and others, including the appellant, were convicted. In appeal, the High 
Court, confirmed the conviction of the appellant relying on the evidence 
of K corroborated by his statement before the Custom authorities and the 
retracted confession of B. 
In appeal to this Court. it was contended that, as K was an accom-
plice, no conviction could be based on his evidence unless· it was corro· 
borated in material particulars; and the statement of K before the Cus-. 
toms authorities and the confession of B to the Customs authorities. 
which was later retracted, could not be u~ed for purposes of such cor. 
roboration. 
HELD : An accomplice is a competent witness and his evidence could 
be accepted and a conviction based on it if there is nothing significant 
i!o reject it as false. 
But the rule of prudooce, ingrained in the considera· 
tion of accompJice evidence, requires independent corroborative evidence 
first of the offence and next connecting the accused, again.<! whom the 
accomplice evidence is used, with the crime. 
Such corroborative evi· 
dence could be direct or circumstantial. 
On such circumstan.ce may be 
the making of confessions by more than one accused, provided there was 
no chance for priot consultation between the confessing co-accused for 
implicating another, and they inspire confidence both in their content and 
in the manner and circumstances of their making. If a confessing co-accused 
is tried jointly, within the. meaning of s. 30 of the Evidence Act, with· the 
accused against whom the accomplice evidence is sought Ito be used for bas· 
--------------------------------------
642 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1968] 2 S.C.R 
ing· a conviction, the OOnfession could be re{erred~.- to .as lending some 
assurance to the verdict. 
The fact that thC· confession was later retracted 
would make no differeoee unless the admissions made in lhe confession 
are satisfactorily withdrawn, or, the making of it explained as havin11 
proceeded from fear, dufess, promise or the )ike, of some one in authority. 
[644 D: 646 A, C.E; 648. D-H; 650 E-F] 
In the present case, though K was an accomplice and his own· state> 
ment before the Custom~ au.!horities could not be used for purposes Qf 
corroboration, his evidence, impressed the lower Courts and was accepted 
by them.' There was nO:hing to make this· Court form a different opinion 
about his veracity. 
There was no. gap of time between 4he statements of 
K and Q, and it was impossible that the Customs officers could' have 
tutored them to make the statements which ·agree Hi many details. Further, 
both ' the stat.ements received corroboration at numerous other points in 
the story from independent evidence. 
The

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