MOHAN LAL Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, Mohan Lal, has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Cawnpore of an offence under Section 395, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment. The dacoity in question took place on the night between 24 and 25 May 1933, and a number of those who took part in it have been tried and convicted. The present appellant however was not arrested until about a year after the dacoity, and he was put up for identification in jail about a month after his arrest. These details are of some importance. The fact that a dacoity had taken place having been proved as a result of the former case, nothing remained in the present case, but to show that the appellant had been present at it, and that the evidence of identification was beyond suspicion. There was an approver in the case a man named Sadasukh and he named the present appellant as one of the dacoits. The learned Judge however though he appears to have believed the statement of this approver, has preferred not to rely on him. After pointing out that his statement does; not agree with that of some of the witnesses for the prosecution, Tie comes to the conclusion that those other witnesses are probably unreliable and that: the approver is telling the truth. The reason why he has decided not to rely on the statement of the approver is that he has discussed the value of the evidence of an accomplice elaborately in other cases, and has come to the conclusion that: It is a waste of time, because the High Court invariably disposes of the whole contention; in one single sentence the man is an accomplice. That is all. It is enough.

(2.) This is not a correct statement of what the High Court does. The state merit of the accomplice is. of course, subject to suspicion, but in certain cases it is of great value in evidence. But the Court is have held that such a statement unless supported by reliable evidence of another kind to corroborate it is not sufficient in itself to form the basis of a conviction. The matter has been discussed very recently by a Bench of this Court in the case of Nazir V/s. Emperor 1931 All. 31, and the extent to which corroboration is necessary is clearly set forth in the words of Lord Reading in Rex V/s. Baskerville (1916) 2 K.B. 658, in which his Lordship remarked: We hold that the evidence of corroboration must be independent testimony which affects the accused by connecting or tending to connect him with the crime. In other words, it must be evidence which implicates him, that is, which confirms in some material particular not only the evidence that the crime has been committed, but also that the prisoner committed it The corroboration need not be direct evidence that the accused committed the crime; it is sufficient if it is merely circumstantial evidence of his connexion with the crime.

(3.) Mr. Hunter the learned Sessions Judge will find that the law as set forth by Lord Reading in this judgment has been followed not only by this Court, but by other High Courts in India. He must in future regard the evidence of an accomplice as evidence that must be considered in certain circumstances, as of the existence of which he must himself be the Judge, and it is not to be completely discarded merely because he may have an apprehension that the High Court may take a different view from his, or that the High Court would utterly refuse to consider it at all merely on the ground that it is the evidence of an accomplice.