Shrishail Nageshi Pare Vs. State of
Maharashtra [1985] INSC 66 (25 March 1985)
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA
(J) ERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J)
CITATION: 1985 AIR 866 1985 SCR (3) 461 1985
SCC (2) 341 1985 SCALE (1)1040
ACT:
Criminal Procedure Code 1973, Section 164
Retracted confession of accused-When can form basis of his conviction -Whether
can form basis of conviction of co- Accused.
Criminal Trial:
Evidence of truthful eye witness-Whether
sufficient to warrant a conviction.
HEADNOTE:
The petitioner was convicted by the Sessions
Judge under Section 302, IPC. and the conviction was confirmed by the High
Court.
Dismissing the Special Leave Petition, ^
HELD: 1. The evidence of an eye witness, if
accepted is sufficient to warrant conviction though in appropriate cases the
Court may as a measure of caution seek some confirming circumstances from other
sources. But ordinarily, the evidence of a truthful eye witness is sufficient
without anything more to warrant a conviction and cannot for instance be made
to depend for its acceptance on the truthfulness of other items of evidence
such as recovery of weapons etc. at the instance of the accused by the police.
[463-B]] 2.A retracted confession by an
accused may form the basis of a conviction of that accused if it receives some
general corroboration from other independent sources. It cannot however, be the
basis for convicting a co-accused though it may be taken into consideration
against co-accused also R It is entirely wrong to think that a confession can
lead nowhere.
[463D-E] 462 In 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 collapses.
It-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 High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 423 of 1981 S.B.
Bhasme, A.B Bhasme and M.A, Firoz for the Petitioner.
The Order of the Court was delivered by
CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. This Special Leave Petition by the first accused in Session
Case No. 134 of 1980 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 rests entirely on appreciation of evidence. While
dismissing the Special Leave Petition we are however, constraint to make a few
remarks about 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 tripod having the eye witness account of Shrimant
and Nirmala as one leg; the discovery of axes, spear and a pair of trousers as
the second leg and the animosity generated by high-handed behaviour of Malkari
regarding diversion of rain water as the third leg. The confession made by
accused No. 1 Nogeshi which was subsequently retracted forms the additional
fourth lee of the tripod but it is well settled that the confessional statement
can never be an evidence upon which a to found a conviction. It can at best
furnish an additional reenforcement when the other evidence is clinching enough
to pronounce 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 tumbling down and the additional fourth leg-that is, the confession, will
not, like all the King's horses and all the King's men would put Humpty Dumpty
together." 463 The metaphor used by the judges is entirely misapplied and
misleading. The evidence of the eye witness, if accepted, is sufficient to
warrant conviction though in appropriate cases the Court may as a measure of
caution seek some confirming circumstances from other sources. But ordinarily,
the evidence of a truthful eye witness is sufficient without anything more, to
warrant a conviction and cannot for instance, be made to depend for its
acceptance on the truthfulness of other items of evidence such as recovery of
weapons etc. at the instance of the accused by the police. The Judges of the
High Court were wrong in treating the evidence of eye witness as 'one of three
legs of a tripod which must collapse if any of the other legs collapses. Again
the High Court is wrong in thinking that a confession cannot be the foundation
of a conviction but can only constitute 'a fourth leg to a tripod'. This
statement has been repeated again in paragraph 30, where the High Court has
observed "the confession alone and by itself cannot prove the guilt of an
accused." We are not a little surprised that such a statement should have
been made by the High Court. We wish to make it clear and this is only to
repeat what is so well established that a retracted confession by an accused
may form the basis of a conviction of that accused if it receives some general
corroboration from other independent sources. It cannot however, be the basis
for convicting co-accused though it may be taken into consideration against
co-accused also. It is entirely wrong to think that a confession can lead
nowhere. We are sorry to find such careless statements in the judgment of a
High Court.
Special leave petition is dismissed.
Back