MADALA NARAYANASWAMY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These ten appeals and the Criminal Revision Case are directed against the same judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderadad in Sessions Cases Nos. 106/1970 and 6/1971. Forty seven accused were tried on seven charges. The first charge is under Sec. 120-B I P.C. on the ground that the accused conspired to commit murders, decoities, and other offences. The second charge also is under Sec. 120-B l.P.C. for conspiracy to wage war against the Government of India by collecting men, arms and ammunition. The third charge is one under Sec. 121-A l.P.C. for conspiracy to over are by means of criminal force and show of criminal force, the State Government. The fourth charge is under Sec. 121 J.P.C. for attempting and abetting to wage war against the Government of India. The fifth charge is under Sec. 122 l.P.C. for collecting men, arms and ammunition with the intention of waging War against the Government. The sixth charge is under Sec. 123 IPC. for holding secret meetings forming Gorilla squads and adopting cover names and stealing weapons and thereby concealing the existence of a design to wage war against the Government of India. The seventh charge is for sedition, punishable under Sec. 124-A l.P.C on the ground that the accused attempted to bring into hatred and contempt, the Government established by law. Twenty four accused have been acquitted of all the charges. The remaining twenty three accused have been convicted of offences punishable under Secs. 121- A, 120-B r.vv. Sec 395, and 120-B r w. Sec. 447 l.P.C. and have been acquitted of all the other offences. Each of these twenty three accused has been sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for four years under each of the first two counts and rigorous imprisonment for three months under the third Count. The sentences were directed to run concurrently . The accused who were convicted are, A-1 to A 5 A-8, A-10 A-11, A-12, A-13, A-16, A-17, A-19, A-23, A 26, A-27, A-31, A-32, A-36, A-38, A-41 and A-47 and all these accused preferred the ten appeals against their convictions and sentences- The Criminal Revision Case is filed by the State for enhancement of the sentences awarded to the appellants. [The learned Judge after narrating the facts considered the evidence and found that P.Ws. 3,5,6,7,9,12 to 19, 21 and 22 are accomplices and proceeded].

(2.) It is a well-settled rule of practice and prudence not to act upon the evidence of accomplices except when it is corroborated in material particulars not only in regard to the corpus delicti but also in regard to particulars connecting the accused vvith the crime. An approver or an accomplice is admittedly immoral and infamous and the evidence of such a witness is held by the courts to be unworthy of credit and belief without independent corroboration inmarial particulars and qua each accused. The rule of independent corroborative evidence in regard to the offence and the offender should be more strictly followed in cases of criminal conspiracy to commit crimes or to over awe the Go- verment by the use of force as such offence of criminal conspiracy is established the moment an agreement to commit crimes or to over awe the Goverment by the use of force, is proved and evidence of a mere agreement amongst a witness and the persons charged can easily be manufactured. As well settled is the rule of corroboration of the evidence of approvers and accomplices, so well settled is the view that one accomplice cannoticorroborate another accomplice. Tainted evidence of an accomplice cannot be made taintless or better by being corroborated by the tainted evidence of another accopmlice. The corroborative evidence should be of an untainted kind, whether direct or circumstantial. Of course, it is not necessary that there should be independent confirmation of every material particular, spoken to by the approver or the accomplice. As pointed out by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in HaroonVs.State (1)'A.1.R.1968 S.C. 833), all that is required is that there must be some independent additional evidence rendering it probable that the story of the accomplice is true and that it is a reasonably safe to act upon it No doubt as pointed out by their Lord- ships of the Supreme Court in Hussain Umar Vs. Dalipsinghi (AIR 1970 S.C. 45) if in any exceptional case several accomplices simultaneously and without previous concert give a consistent account of the crime implicating the accused, the court may accept the several statements as corroborating each other. (After considering the various documents the learned Judge proceeded)

(3.) The various documents produced by the prosecution can broadly be analysed into two categories. One category consists of documents, the hand writing of which is proved by the prosecution and the other category consists of documents, the hand-writing of which has not been proved by the prosecution. In regard to the latter category of documents, there is an objection from the accused for their use against any of the accused. The prosection however, relies on the documents not only against the accused'from whom they were seized, but also against the others, and relied on Section 10 of the indian EVIDENCE ACT, 1872, which reads: