Bhagwat Saran vs State of U.P.

Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.—The accused comes up before this Court u/s 482, Criminal Procedure Code. He is one of the four accused hauled up for theft of electric wires.

I have heard Sri Rupesh Srivastava advocate for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

The prime contention of the applicant is that he has been implicated only on the basis of the statement of the other co-accused, and the statement of other co-accused is inadmissible in law and he deserves to be discharged.

There is another ground of enmity with the Pradhan of the village, because of which, he has been falsely implicated, but which cannot be considered in these proceedings u/s 482, Criminal Procedure Code, being a question of fact, which can be determined only after evidence.

The contention of Sri Rupesh Srivastava that the evidence of co-accused is not admissible in evidence, flies in the face of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which is one of our fundamental Laws. Illustration (b) of Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act is as follows:

(b) that an accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless he is corroborated in material particulars.

It is unimaginable that despite this clear basic law, this contention has been raised. The Supreme Court has gone one step further and in the case of Rameshwar Vs. The State of Rajasthan, has held that law relating to accomplice evidence is that the accused can be convicted on an uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice, but the rule is that, it is not safe to do so, as given in Illustration (b) of Section 114, must be present to the mind of the Judge, and Judge must give some indication in the judgment that he had this rule of caution in mind, and should proceed to give reason for considering it unnecessary to require corroboration on the facts of the particular case before him, and show, why he considers safe to convict him without corroboration.

Counsel for the applicant has referred to the case of Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, It is mentioned in the case itself that on the facts of the particular case the evidence of accomplice was found inadmissible. They have not referred the earlier case law of Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan cited above. The case cited by the applicant was a case of accomplice and the statement was found inadmissible because it was given after completion of conspiracy. No reference has also been made in this case to Illustration (b) of Section 114, Indian Evidence Act.

The petition must, therefore, fail and is accordingly dismissed.