KHOKAN GIRI @ MADHAB versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [2016] 9 S.C.R. 759 · Decided: 01-12-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI, ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016) 9 S.C.R. 759 
KHOKAN GIRI @ MADHAB 
v. 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1399 of2007) 
DECEMBER 01, 2016 
[A. K. SIKRI AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.) 
Evidence Act, 1872 - ss.1331114 - Confessional statement of 
accomplice - Admissibility and appreciation of - Murder of elderly 
couple at their flat - Robbery - Conviction of appellant and three 
others u/ss.3021341120B and s.394, !PC based upon the confessional 
statement of an accomplice (PW3) - PW3 gave confession soon 
after his arrest -
Plea of appellant that High Court wrongly gave 
undue importance to the testimony of PW3 and based the conviction 
of appellant thereupon, in absence of independent corroborative 
evidence in material particulars - Held: As a matter of practice, the 
evidence of accomplice should not be accepted without 
corroboration in material particulars - Furthe1; such corroboration 
must connect the accused with the crime and also this corroboration 
must be from an independent source - On facts, it is found that the 
trial court convicted the appellant along with other accused persons 
after finding that there was sufficient corroborative material 011 
record - High Court did this exercise all over again discussing the 
said corroborative material and found that the statement of PW3 
got fi1ll corroboration jiwn different independent witnesses along 
with the circumstances established by those witnesses - Thus, no 
error found in the impugned judgment of High Court affirming the 
conviction of appellant - Penal code, 1860 - ss.302/34/120B and 
394. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The prosecution heavily relied upon the 
confessional statement of PW3 (the accomplice) which was given 
soon after his arrest. It had also come on record that PW3 became 
approver. Though the manne.r in which he became approver was 
challenged before the Trial Court as well as the High Court, this 
contention of the appellant and other accused persons was 
759 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
760 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016) 9 S.C.R. 
A 
negatived by the High Court. This aspect is not under challenge 
before this Court. In such circumstances, the statement of the 
accomplice becomes admissible in evidence in view of the 
provisions contained in Section 133 and Section 114 of the Indian 
Evidence Act, 1872. [Para 3)[764-C-D] 
B 
c 
1.2 Though the accomplice would be competent to give 
evidence, it ,is a rule of practice that it would almost always be 
unsafe to convict upon his testimony alone. What is required is 
that, as a matter of practice, the evidence of accomplice should 
not be accepted without corroboration in material particulars. 
Further, such corroboration must connect the accused with crillle 
and also that this corroboration must be from an independent 
source, meaning thereby, one accomplice cannot corroborate 
another. [Para 4)[765-E, F) 
1.3 The present case is examined keeping in view the 
aforesaid legal principle, viz., whether there is corroborative 
D 
evidence in material particulars substantiating the confessional 
.statement of the accomplice and other material connecting the 
appellant with the crime. On going through the impugned 
judgment, it is found that the Trial Court convicted the appellant 
along with other accused persons after finding that there was 
E 
sufficient corroborative material on record as well. The High 
Court did this exercise all over again discussing the said 
corroborative material. No error found in the impugned judgment 
of the High Court affirming the conviction of the appellant. [Paras 
5, 6 and 7][765-G-H; 766-A; 769-H] 
p 
Chandra Prakash v. State of Rajasthan (2014)' 8 SCC 
340 - referred to. 
G 
2014 (~) sec 340 
Case Law Reference 
referred to 
Para 16 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
1399 of2007. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.09.2006 of the High Court 
of Calcutta in Criminal Appeal No. l 00of1999. 
Dushyant Parashar (Amicus Curiae), Surya Kant, Advs. for the 
H 
Appellant. 
KHOKAN GIRI@ MADHAB v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
761 
Mrinal Kanti Manda], Parijat Sinha, Ad vs. for the Respondent. 
A 
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered 
JUDGMENT 
I. The appellant herein, along with three other accused persons, 
was convicted under Sections 302, 34, 120B and 394 of the Indian Penal 
B 
Code (IPC) by the Trial Court and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment 
for life for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 34 and 120B 
IPC and for 10 years rigo

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