LexM.O. SHAMSUDHIN versus STATE OF KERALA.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
M.Q. SHAMSUDHIN
v.
STATE OF KERALA.
MARCH 21, 1995
B
(M.M. PUNCHHI AND K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, JJ.].
Indian Evidence Act, 1872-Secs. ll<t (b) and 133-accomplice-Vn-
corroborated testimonr-Acceptance of-Guarded approach of Court-Held,
though his evidence could be relied upon, the facts and circumstances con-
._]
C viction not illegal-Hence, upheld.
D
Corroboration of Accomplice-Need for-In the nature of supporting
evidence-Not for ensuring any defect in the testimony of accomplice or to
validate it-Nature of corroborating evidence can be eve>i by way of cir-
cumstantial evidence.
Corroboration-Bribery case--Absolutely independent witness not pos-
sible-Necessity, extent and nature of dependence on facts and circumstan-
ces-N ec es sity of corroboration of complainant in all material
particulars-Cannot be laid down as a rnle of law.
E ·
Accomplice-Bribery case-types and grades of-First:The giver of
, .
money for the purpose of trap to be called interested witness-Second.· One
who is always willing to get his work done by giving bribe and then complain-
ing-Particeps criminis-Statement of particeps criminis to be treated as the
statement of accomplice.
F
Indian Penal Code, 186(}-Sectio'n 161 read with Section 120B-
Prevention of Comiption Act, 1947-Section 5 (2) r/w Section 5(1)(d)-
Prosecution,under-Testimony of bribe giver-No corroboration-Two inde-
. pendent witnesses of trap proceedings-Conviction by trial Court and High
Court-Held, evidence of bribe giver corroborated by circumstantial evidence
G and indepen{ient witnesses-Hence, conviction confirmed.
Words and Pharases: ''Accomplice'~ Corroboration" meaning of:
The Petitioners/A·l and 2 were charged under Section 5(2) read with
Section 5 (l)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and under section 161
H read with Section 120B IPC. The allegations against them were that Al,
900
.
SHAMSUDHIN v. STATE
901
Tehsildar and A2 Village Assistant had demanded bribe of Rs. 500 from A
PWl and PW2 for issuance of Patta of a piece of land in favour of PW-1.
PW-1 filed complaint before Deputy S.P., Vigilance, in the presence of PW3
and PW4. Trap was laid and the trap party alongwith mediators PWs 3
and 4 accompanied PWs 1and2 till the office of A·l. PWs 1and2 went
inside the office and A-1 who asked PW 1 to give the amount to A-2 who B
was standing nearby. PW-1 gave the amount to A-2 who kept it in his pant
pocket. After signal from PW-1 the trap party with PWs 3 and 4 reached
there and on asking, A-2 took out Rs. 500, the number of which tallied with
the number noted down by the raiding party. Phenolphthelin test of fingers
of A-2, his pant pocket and currency notes proved positive.
A-1 denied the charge and A-2 stated that he had obtained loan from
his Provident Fund Account and from that money a loan of Rs. 500 was
taken from him by A/1. He received the amount bonafide believing that it
was towards the loan. In support of statement of A-1, DW-1 was produced.
c
The Court declaring PW-1 hostile and on the basis of evidence of D
P.Wl and P.Ws.3 and 4, the independent witnesses, convicted both the
accused of the above charges.
The appeal of the accused to High Court were dismissed. In appeal
to this Court, A-1 contended that P.W.1, the bribe· giver was in the nature E
of accomplice and since P.W. 2 was declared hostile, there was no cor-
roboration to the alleged demand of bribe and also that bribe money was
not recovered from him, therefore, his plea of innocence is worth to be
admitted. A- 2 contended that since he received the money bonafide believ-
ing it to be towards the loan, he was innocent.
Dismissing the two appeals of A-1 and one Appeal A·2, this Court.
HELD : 1. Taking the overall circumstances into consideration in
the light of the evidence of PWs 3 and 4 along with the evidence of P.Ws.
F
1 and 2 both the courts have consistently held that the evidence of these G
witneses establish the guilt of the accused and there is no reason to come
to different conclusion. Though P.W. 2 has been treated hostile but there
is no reason to reject the evidence of P.W. 1 who is the main witness
regarding the demand of bribe and acceptance of the same by A·2 on behalf
of A·l as directed by A-1. The evidence of DW-1 by itself does not in any
manner demolish the evidence of PW·l. [920-H, 921-A, 909·B, 907-C]
H
902
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1995] 2 S.C.R.
A
Pannalal Damodar Rathi v. State of Maharashtra, [1979] 4 SCC 526,Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.