SHRISHAIL NAGESHI PARE versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [1985] 3 S.C.R. 461 · Decided: 25-03-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

. 
A 
• 
.. 
- I 
461 
A 
SHRISHAIL NAGESHI PARE 
• 
B· 
:STA_TE OF MAHARASHTRA: 
March 25, 1985 
- .. ,_; 
[O. CmNNAP~A REDDY AND V. BALAWHNA ERADr,JJ.] 
- '. 
Cri,;,tnal Procedure cOde J97J,' Section. JM 
Retracted confession oi accll$ed-When ;cV,fof.m basis of /111 con,lctiOn 
-Whether can form basis of corrvlctlon of co·Accused. 
D . 
:· 
.... · 
_ Criminal Trial : · 
£vf'1enct of 1ru1h{uf .eµ »:llne1s-;Whether sufficient to_ warrant a cotrv/c .. 
. ' 
' 
The petitio~er was ~onvlctcd by the Sessions _ Judge· under Section 302. 
Jf~1 ~nd th~ 'QnViC\iOR W'IS confirmea by tho ffish Court, 
' Plsmissin~ Ille Spceial Leave Petition, ' 
. . 
' 
. 
' 
' -
· HELP : ·I, The . e~idcnce of an eye witness; It accep'tcd !1 -,ufiict.;,1' 
10 warrant conviction though in appropriate cases the Court may ai a nicas11r0 · 
of caution seek •= confirming citcumstances from other sources. 
Bui ordl·: 
llUily, the evidence of a truthful eye wi!JlCss is sufficient without. anything 
moro to warrant a· eouviction and cannot tor instance be made to depend_ tor 
E 
F 
Its aoceptance on the . truthfiilncss of other Items of evidence lucb u recovery, 
G 
• _of ~upous etc. at the instance or the accused by the police: 
[463A·BJ' 
.. 
· · . 2. A retracted confession by an accused may form the basis of a 
coDviction of that accused if it tteeives . some general corroboration from other 
"l 
independent sources: . It cannot however, be the basis tor. convicting a co•. 
accused _though it may be taken into consideration •&ainst co-&CCUJCd •· · 
fl 
ii 13 ~nlirclr wronJ 19 \hiiik lh~I R ~9!lfc1sio11 fi!!l lc~~ P9l"li~~.· 
(463D·llj 
B~ 
CJ 
D1 
---------- --~
462> 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1985) 3 S.C.R. 
Jn the instant case, the High Court was wrong in treating the evidence 
of the eye witness as 'one of three legs of a tripod' which must collapse if any -
of the other Legs collaPSCs.'· · :11 was; also· wrong in' holding that a confession 
cannot be the foundation of a conviction but can only constitute'a fourth leg 
to a tripod\ and that "the confession alone and by itself cannot prove the ' 
guilt of an accused."" 
· 
[463C-D] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE . JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition 
(Criminal) No. 372 of 1985. 
From. the Judgment and Order dated 18/19.9.1984 of the 
Bombay[ ¥fg~;~o~r} }~ Cri,'"?i.~~l A_PP'?~~ N!''. ,~;,3 .~f,1,98~ , , , ,! 
S.B. Bhasme, A.B. Bhasme and M.A. Firoz for the Petitioner. 
'\ ._,,·.,,,.,, ... _~•-'. 
;, 'J ·, ......... 
·;, 
~.,- .. ··.:; 
· 
·The Order of the Court was delivered by 
::~-\\,;;·:·_~~.·-
~-t·'.1;, ;- .. =.' _.: ·-·; .. 
-~'.---. ,, 
: \.··. ·:",: 
', 1 
•"·(•,'.' •• 
I 
. , .. - • 
;: .. . 
. ' -,. . \ 
~ 
Cm~APPA REDDY, J. This Special Leave Petition by the first 
accused in Session Case No. 134 of 1930 before the Sessions Judge, 
Sholapur whose conviction by the Sessions Judge under section 302 
has been confirmed by the High Court, has to be dismissed-as it 
' 
.... 
· -
J•> 
'' '' 
' 
"' 
-- • . . 
O 
! " • ,' 
. • •," '• · 
• •' 
: ' • 
' 
0 •" •" •' •. 0 
~ 
restS ·enttrely ·on ·appreciation of evidence. While d1Sm1Ssmg the·. 
Special Leave Petition we are however, constraint to make a few' 
remarks 
abou~ some . of the observations of the High Court. In 
paragraph 18 of·' the· judgment' of; the High Court it has been said 
"the case of the prosecution stands< on·. the. pedestal "of a 'ti:ipc)ci' 
having the eye witness account of Shrimant and Nirmala as one leg: 
the discovery of axes. spear and a pair of trousers as th.e second leg 
and the animosity generated by high-handed behaviour of Malkari 
r~gar<Ji11g piy:rsion, of rain. '\}'ate~ ,.:is •the !hird_leg. 
~The ~onfession 
ll!ad~,by a,ecus,d,N,o, j. Nogeshi ::which was subsequently retracted· 
forms the! additional' fourth' leg -of the ·tripod but it is' well settled• 
ttiat'the·confessional statement can n~ver be an eviderice···uponwbii::h'. 
to found-~ a' conviction. ' It can:· at· best rfurnish an additioriat·re~' 
., ,. 
~--
·-· 
•••• -···~ 
~ 
.,· .. ,·,. 
..•... / •. ' ..•..••.. · •... , .. ,.~·.··· 
1· 
. e11ro,rfewenfwhen .. t~e. !!thee ... evi~en~e., 15 cl,inchmg ,enough. t~ pr~· 
nounce a verdict of guilt.· The confessional statement alone and by 
itself would lead us nowhere ; if one of the legs of the tripod on 
. which' the prosecution bases its case. 'gives way,' the whole case like 
Humpty Dumpty'would come ~umbling· down ·arid ·the 'additional 
folirt!{feg.:....:t:hat is, the confession, will not; like.all the King's horse

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