THE STATE OF BIHAR versus BASAWAN SINGH

Citation: [1959] 1 S.C.R. 195 · Decided: 21-03-1958 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIVIAN BOSE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

-
• 
• 
S.C.R. 
• 
spPREME COURT REPORTS 
THE STATE OF BIHAR 
v. 
BASA WAN SINGH 
195 
-
(BHAGWATI, VENKATARAMA AIYAR, s. K. DAS, 
A. K. SARKAR and VIVIAN BosE, JJ.) 
. 
Criminal Law-Bribe-Trap-Testimony of the raiding party-
Reliability-I ndependent corroboration-Whether essential-Whether 
circumstantial evidence suJficient-Evidence of Magistrate interested 
in the trap-Evidence of accomplices and partisans-Reliability . 
The respondent, a sub-inspector of police, was charged with 
acceptance of Rs. roo as a bribe from two persons, B and P, for 
dropping a case which he had instituted against B under the 
Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946. 
The prosecu-
tion case was that when the demand for the bribe made by the 
res.r-ondent could not be avoided, B and P approached the Anti-
Corruption Department, and it was arranged that the respondent 
should be paid at the'police station the bribe money in the shape 
of currency notes produced by B and P and initialled by M, who 
was in charge of the Anti-Corruption Department, and that M, 
along with a Deputy Superintendent of the Department and a 
first class Magistrate, should be at the police station at the time 
of payment, dressed as ordinary villagers; that as soon as the 
amounts in notes were received by the respondent the officers 
disclosed their identity, that thereupon the respondent tried to 
throw away the currency notes but that as a result of the offic~ 
catching hold of his hands the notes were found in his hand ........ 
except one which was missing and that as a result of a search 
made in the presence of two search witnesses later the missing 
note was also found. The resp~naent was tried by the Special 
Judge who accepted the prosecution evidence and found him 
guilty of the offence under s. 161 of the Indian Penal Code. On 
appeal to the High Court the learned single Judge who disposed 
of the appeal held that the respondent could not be convicted 
bccijuse (r) there was no independent witness to support "the 
testimony of the " raiding party " consisting of the two bribe-
• givers and the three officers, (2) the search witnesses did not prove 
the transaction nor were they present at the time of the occur-
rence, and (3) the decision in Rao Shiv Bahadiv Singh v. State of 
Vindhya Pradesh, [1954] S.C.R. 1098, had laid down an invariable 
rule that in cases of this nature the testimony of those witnesses 
who form what is called " the raiding party" must be discarded, 
unless that testimony is corroborated by independent witnesses. 
The State appealed by special leave: 
'1eld, 
(1) that the evidence of the two search witnesses 
provided independent corroboration in a material particular to 
• 
• 
• 
• 
:March zr. 
, . 
•• 
• 
• 
196 
SUPREME COURT REPORT~ 
[1959] 
z958 
the testimony of the raiding party, because the missing currency 
-
. · note, one of the series testified to by the raiding party, could be 
The State 0! Biharfound where it was actually found only if the testimony of the 
• 
v. 
raiding party was true. 
Basa~a~Singh 
• • 
• 
(2) that corroboration need not be by direct evidence that 
the accused committed the crime; it is sufficient even though it is 
merely by circumstantial evidence of his connection with the 
crime. 
Ramcshwar v. The State. of Rajasthan, [1952] S. C. R. 377, ' 
followed. 
(3) that the decision in Rao Shiv Balladur Singh v. State of 
Vindhya Pradesh, [1954] S.C.R. 1098, has not laid down any in-
flexible rule that the evidence of the witnesses of the raiding 
party must be discarded in all cases in the absence of any indepen-
dent corroboration. 
The correct rule is that if any of the witnesses are accom-
plices, their evidence is admissible in law but the judge must 
warn the jury of the danger of convicting the accused on.the 
uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice; if the case is tried 
without the aid of a jury, the judge should indicate in his judg-
ment that he harl this rule of caution in mind and give reasons 
for considering it unnecessary to require corroboration; if, how-
ever, the witnesses are not accomplices but are merely partisan 
or interested witnesses, who are concerned in the success of the 
trap, their evidence must be tested in the same way as any other 
interested evidence is tested, and in a proper case, the Court may 
look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused 
j'\!rson. If a Magistrate puts himself in the position of a partisan 
/or interested witness, he c

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