Case Note & Summary
The case involved criminal appeals before the Supreme Court of India arising from the judgment of the Bombay High Court which convicted six accused persons for the murders of three individuals. The dispute originated over possession of a plot of land in village Chinchpur between Gurpadappa and his brother on one side and Parwati and the deceased Revansidappa on the other. On 11 June 1961, the three deceased were killed in a gruesome manner near the Maruti Temple. The prosecution relied primarily on the testimony of Parwati, the sole eye witness, which she had given before the committing magistrate. However, in the Sessions Court, Parwati resiled from her previous statement and claimed she had not seen the occurrence. Her committal court evidence was brought on record under Section 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether such evidence, which is substantive evidence, required corroboration before it could be used to convict the accused, especially when the witness had contradicted herself on oath. The appellants contended that reliance on uncorroborated contradictory testimony was unsafe, while the prosecution argued that evidence under Section 288 is substantive and law does not require corroboration. The Court examined the principle, relying on the Privy Council decision in Bhuboni Sahu v. The King, and held that while Section 288 evidence is substantive and no corroboration is legally mandated, where a witness gives two contradictory statements on oath, it is ordinarily unsafe to rely implicitly on such evidence. The judge must be satisfied about the truth of one version, and that satisfaction typically requires extrinsic evidence, not merely about the general occurrence but specifically about the participation of each accused. In exceptional cases, a judge may accept one statement without extrinsic evidence if satisfied. Applying this to the facts, the Supreme Court found that the High Court was not justified in acting on Parwati's uncorroborated committal court evidence. Consequently, the appeals were allowed and the convictions set aside.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Evidence - Section 288 CrPC - Evidence of witness before committing court tendered under s.288 is substantive evidence and corroboration is not legally required, but where witness resiles and gives contradictory statements on oath, the court must be satisfied of truth and ordinarily needs extrinsic evidence, especially regarding participation of accused - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Section 288 - The issue was whether convictions could be based solely on Parwati's committal court testimony when she resiled in Sessions Court. The court held that though substantive and no corroboration mandated, reliance on such contradictory testimony without extrinsic support is unsafe. Held that in most cases satisfaction can come only from extrinsic evidence. (Paras 5-6) B) Criminal Law - Evidence - Evaluation of Contradictory Witness - Application to Facts - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Section 288 - The High Court convicted appellants based solely on Parwati's committal court evidence without corroboration. The Supreme Court held that on the facts, the High Court was not justified in acting on uncorroborated evidence of the only eye witness given in the committing court, because she had resiled in Sessions Court and no extrinsic evidence existed regarding participation. Held that convictions were unsustainable; appeals allowed. (Paras 1,5,6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether evidence of a witness given in the committing court and tendered under Section 288 CrPC requires corroboration before conviction, when the witness resiles in the Sessions Court and gives contradictory statements on oath.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that though evidence under Section 288 CrPC is substantive and no corroboration is required as matter of law, when a witness gives contradictory statements on oath, it is unsafe to rely implicitly without extrinsic support. On facts, High Court was not justified in acting on Parwati's uncorroborated evidence. Therefore, appeals allowed and convictions set aside.
Law Points
- Evidence of a witness in committing court tendered under Section 288 CrPC is substantive evidence
- corroboration not required as a matter of law
- where witness makes contradictory statements on oath
- it is ordinarily unsafe to rely implicitly
- satisfaction of truth usually requires extrinsic evidence especially regarding participation of accused
- in exceptional cases judge may accept one statement without extrinsic evidence if satisfied
