EMPEROR Vs. SHANKARSHET RAMSHET URAVANE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are applications in revision in which the two accused ask us to interfere with their conviction under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, that is to say, for concealing evidence of an offence. The ground on which the accused ask us to interfere is that, as they say, the only evidence against them is that of an accomplice, and that there is no sufficient corroboration of that evidence such as the Court normally requires. At the outset the learned Government Pleader referred us to the case of Emperor V/s. Lallubhai (1909) Bom. L.R. 858, in which it was laid down that a conviction will not be disturbed by the High Court under its revisional jurisdiction on the mere ground that the rule of practice which requires that the evidence of an accomplice should be corroborated has not been adhered to by the Court which has convicted unless there are exceptional circumstances calling for the exercise of that jurisdiction in the interests of justice. The Criminal Procedure Code confers the widest powers of revision upon this Court, and I rather protest against Judges seeking to lay down rules which confine that discretion in a manner in which the Legislature has not seen fit to Confine it. I think myself that it is clearly open to an accused parson in revision to contend that he has been convicted on the strength of tainted evidence and tainted evidence only, and that it is not the practice of this Court to convict on such evidence; and that if such contention is established the Court should interfere. I think, therefore, we must consider the case on its merits.

(2.) The principal evidence in the case is that of a man named Chima who was undoubtedly an accomplice. It appears that some time in May 1931-the exact date is not proved-a man named Bapusaheb, who is the son of accused No. 1. murdered his mistress named Sundrabai in a house in Poona occupied by accused No. 1 and Bapusaheb as part of the joint family property. Bapusaheb informed his wife Lilavati of the murder and made her assist him in cleaning the room and the knife used. Subsequently Lilavati was confined by Bapusaheb in this house for about six months, when she escaped and informed the police about the murder, and ultimately Bapusaheb was prosecuted and convicted and sentenced to transportation for life. The story of Chima as to the suppression of evidence of this murder comes shortly to this: He is a servant of accused No. 1 employed at a place called Vadgaon, some five or six miles from Poona, where accused No. 1 owns some fields and a building which is described as a bungalow, in which a man named Raghunath, who was some relation of accused No. 1, lived. Raghunath had died, so his evidence was not available. On the day of the offence, according to Chima, he had gone to Poona to accused No. 1's house to carry some wood; he had taken the bullock cart over, and that was sent back with another servant, In the course of the afternoon Chima was driven back to Vadgaon in a tonga in which accused No. 2, who is the servant of accused No. 1, was in the habit of driving his master; so that the three of them, accused No. 1, accused No. 2 and Chima, were driven out to Vadgaon, according to Chima's evidence, on the day of the offence. Then, Chima was sent back to Poona with the bullock cart, as he says, in order to fetch manure, and accused No. 2 seems to have gone back to Poona by a lorry. Subsequently Chima and accused No. 2 helped to carry the body of the murdered woman which was wrapped in a carpet down the stairs, they placed it in the bullock cart under some manure, and took it out to Vadgaon, and then, according to Chima's evidence, they there buried it in a room in the bungalow under the express directions and superintendence of accused No. 1. Some six months later, Chima says, that, accused No. 1 told him that Lilavati had informed the police about this murder and that the bones of the murdered woman must, therefore be disposed of, and accordingly Chima and accused No. 2 dug up the bones and threw them into the canal. Eventually bones of a woman were found in the canal, which bones were identified as those of the murdered woman, and some teeth which fitted into the skull found in, the canal were found in the room of the bungalow where the body was said to have been first buried. Those facts undoubtedly tend to corroborate the general truth of Chima's story.

(3.) Now, both the trial Court and the lower appellate Court recognised that Chima is an accomplice, and that the rule of the Court is that the evidence of an accomplice requires some independent corroboration as against each accused, and both the Courts came to the conclusion that there was sufficient corroboration. The learned Government Pleader has contended that it is not necessary that the evidence corroborating the story of an approver or an accomplice should be evidence which directly connects the accused with the offence. I agree with that proposition, but there must be some evidence which tends to show that the story of the approver or accomplice is true in so far as it relates to the accused. For instance, if the story of an approver is that the accused took part in a murder and robbery and that he received part of the stolen goods, independent evidence that the property shown to have been stolen on the occasion of the offence is found with the accused would be corroboration of the approver's story against the accused, although the finding of stolen property is obviously not in itself evidence that the accused took part in a murder. As the learned Government Pleader points out, if the rule were that you must have independent evidence against the accused of the actual perpetration of the offence, it would come to this that the approver's evidence can only be used by way of corroboration, and that is not the rule.