EMPEROR Vs. CHHOTALAL BABAR (NO2)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dealing with the appeal of Ambalal Jethalal, who was accused No. 2 in the Sessions Trial, we cannot agree with the the learned Sessions Judge in the conclusion at which he has arrived, namely, that he is guilty, and the reasons that he has given for that conclusion.

(2.) The evidence as against the appellant rests solely upon the evidence of Somnath, the pardoned approver. His being the for evidence of an accomplice there must be corroboration in the material particulars by means of independent testimony before the conviction can be sustained. Such corroboration there is absolutely none in the present case. The learned Sessions Judge seems to have thought that there was corroboration afforded by the position, connection and general conduct of accused No. 2, the appellant before us. The learned Judge is right so far as a matter of law, that the degree of amount of corroboration required depends upon the facts of each case. But when he goes on to observe that in a case like the present f where the utmost secrecy must have been observed, the position, connection and the general conduct of accused No. 2 in doing Chhotalal s business afforded a sufficient corroboration, I think that view of the law cannot be accepted.. If there was any secrecy then it only means that there is no corroboration by means of independent evidence; that we are Infect to conjecture so far as any evidence to corroborate Somnath is concerned, and that the prosecution has not been able to bring forward the evidence of circumstances by means of independent witnesses to support the story of Somnath. It is difficult, it seems to me, to understand what the learned Sessions Judge had definitely in mind when he thought that (the very fact that the appellant worked in secrecy afforded (independent corroboration. When we examine the evidence with reference to what the learned Sessions Judge calls the position, connection, and the general conduct, of accused No. 2, I find that there again there is nothing which fulfils the requirements of law so far as corroboration is concerned. All that is alleged and proved is that the appellant was a partner of Chhotalal, and that he used to visit Umreth. It is only upon that point that we have anything like independent testimony. But on the question whether the appellant visited Umreth for the purpose of getting the document, charged as forgery, there is no witness whatever beyond Somnath. The learned Government pleader has been compelled to rest the case for the Crown upon circumstances elicited in the evidence of Somnath himself for the purpose of finding corroboration. But the learned Sessions Judge s judgment itself shows that practically he was resting his conclusions upon the testimony of Somnath while supposing that the circumstances elicited in Somnath s evidence afforded material corroboration. What the law requires is corroboration in respect of material particulars by means of independent testimony. In the present case Somnath stands self-condemned. He is a notorious forger, and, being an accomplice, it would be dangerous to rest the conviction upon his testimony exclusively.

(3.) For these reasons, I am of opinion, that the conviction and sentence must be reversed and the accused directed to be set at liberty. Batchelor, J.