# 2 s.c.R. StJPREME COURT REPOR1:8 CHINNA GOWDA v. STA1'E OF MYSORE

- **Citation:** [1963] 2 S.C.R. 517
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1961-07-07
- **Case number:** Criminal Referred Case No. 25 of 1959
- **Bench:** K. C. DAB GUl'Ta, J. R. Mudholkar, T. L. VENKATAR.ill.A AIYAR
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/2-s-c-r-stjpreme-court-repor1-8-chinna-gowda-v-sta1-e-of-mysore-2511
- **Pages:** 18

## Headnote

517
Criminal Trial-Approver-Corroboration
of-·· Retracted
confe•Bion• oJ co..accu•ed-When can be 'l<Bed a. corroboration.
The appellants were convicted of murder.
The sub-
- stantial evidence on which the conviction rested was the
evidence of an approver and the confessions of two coaccused.
Held, that the conviction of the appellants could not
be sustained. Though .there· is no bar for a conviction being
based
upon
the evidence
of an approver alone, as a
matter of prudence the courts always require that· such
evidence should be corroborated in material' particulars. The
need for corroboration is all the greater in a case like- the
present where the approver, apart from being of bad character,
could not be said to be a man of truth since he had rcsiled
from his confession before the Committing Court. The
retracted confessions of the cc>·accused in the present case
could not be safely relied upon for corroborating the approver.
The confession of an accomplice which cannot be tested by
cross-examination is a very weak type of evidence. Even if
some weight could be attached to confessions when made by
two or more accomplices independently of each other implicating a particular accused the confessions in the present case were
not such as could be taken as good corroboration of the
approver.
Bhuhoni Sahu v. Tht King [1949] L.R. 76 I, A. 147 and
K~l:mira Singh v. State of Madhya PradeBh [1952] S.C.ll.
526, relied on.
CimnNAL APPEi.LATE JumsDIOTION : Criminal
Appeal Noe. 172 & 173of1961.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment
-~.
and or~er d~t~d July 7, 1961 of the Mysore High
Court m Criminal Appeals Noe. 352 and 355 of 1959
and Criminal Referred Case No. 25 of 1959,
Aprilt7.
IHI
ChiMO Goa:irh
••
sw .. JM,. ...
518
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1963]
N. H. llingorani, for the appellants.
B. R. /,, Iyengar and H. H. Dhebar, for the
respondents.
1962. April 27.
The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
MuDHOLKAR,
J.-1'hc>
appellant,
China
Gowda, was tried along with six othe1· persons for
committing the murder of an entire family conaisting of eight persons on the night intervening the .
12th and J:Jth February, 1958, in Handigodu hamlet
of the village Viavalli. The learned Sessions Judge
convicted every one of them under e. 302, Indian
Penal Code, and sentenced each of them to death.
In appeal, the accused No. 2, Shivappa Naika and
accused No. 7, Gunde Gowda were acquitted. The
appeals of the remaining accused persons were dismissed The High Court, however, confirmed the conviction and sent;inces only of the appellant Chinna
Gowda and of Rame Gowda, appellant in (...'riminal
Appeals Nos. 172 and 173 of 1961 and while affirming the conviction of the other three aooused
commuted the death sentences passed against them
to imprisonment for life. The appellants in the
two appeals were granted special leave by thi1
Court under Art. 136 of the Constitution and that
is how the appeals are now before us.
The fu.cts as alleged by the prosecution are
briefly these:
The deceased, Mariappa Gowda took up residenc" in Handigodu about eight or ten yeal'll prior
to the murder. He was an industrious and thrifty
person and soon became very prosperous. This
aroused the envy and jealousy of the appellant,
..
Chinna Gowda. In the course of years, numeroua
•··
disputes over the boundaries of fields, trespasses on
fields, the flow of water and so on arose between
the two of them. For some time prior to the
l
I
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
519
murders, the relationship between Mariappa Gowda
(deceased) and the appellant as well as Rame
Gowda, the appellant in the other appeal, became
very strained. It may be mentioned that Rame
Gowda was actually living with Mariappa Gowda
for some time and Mariappa Gowda leased out some
lands to him. Shortly thereafter, both of them
fell out and Mariappa Gowda was anxious to evict
Rame Gowda, from the leased lands. Mariappa
Gowda was, therefore, reluctant to issue receipts
for rent paid by Ra.me Gowda, to him. This
annoyed

## Text

I
2 s.c.R.
StJPREME COURT REPOR1:8
CHINNA GOWDA
v.
STA1'E OF MYSORE
(K. C. DAB GUl'Ta, J. R. MUDHOLKAR and
T. L. VENKATAR.ill.A AIYAR, JJ.)
517
Criminal Trial-Approver-Corroboration
of-·· Retracted
confe•Bion• oJ co..accu•ed-When can be 'l<Bed a. corroboration.
The appellants were convicted of murder.
The sub-
- stantial evidence on which the conviction rested was the
evidence of an approver and the confessions of two coaccused.
Held, that the conviction of the appellants could not
be sustained. Though .there· is no bar for a conviction being
based
upon
the evidence
of an approver alone, as a
matter of prudence the courts always require that· such
evidence should be corroborated in material' particulars. The
need for corroboration is all the greater in a case like- the
present where the approver, apart from being of bad character,
could not be said to be a man of truth since he had rcsiled
from his confession before the Committing Court. The
retracted confessions of the cc>·accused in the present case
could not be safely relied upon for corroborating the approver.
The confession of an accomplice which cannot be tested by
cross-examination is a very weak type of evidence. Even if
some weight could be attached to confessions when made by
two or more accomplices independently of each other implicating a particular accused the confessions in the present case were
not such as could be taken as good corroboration of the
approver.
Bhuhoni Sahu v. Tht King [1949] L.R. 76 I, A. 147 and
K~l:mira Singh v. State of Madhya PradeBh [1952] S.C.ll.
526, relied on.
CimnNAL APPEi.LATE JumsDIOTION : Criminal
Appeal Noe. 172 & 173of1961.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment
-~.
and or~er d~t~d July 7, 1961 of the Mysore High
Court m Criminal Appeals Noe. 352 and 355 of 1959
and Criminal Referred Case No. 25 of 1959,
Aprilt7.
IHI
ChiMO Goa:irh
••
sw .. JM,. ...
518
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1963]
N. H. llingorani, for the appellants.
B. R. /,, Iyengar and H. H. Dhebar, for the
respondents.
1962. April 27.
The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
MuDHOLKAR,
J.-1'hc>
appellant,
China
Gowda, was tried along with six othe1· persons for
committing the murder of an entire family conaisting of eight persons on the night intervening the .
12th and J:Jth February, 1958, in Handigodu hamlet
of the village Viavalli. The learned Sessions Judge
convicted every one of them under e. 302, Indian
Penal Code, and sentenced each of them to death.
In appeal, the accused No. 2, Shivappa Naika and
accused No. 7, Gunde Gowda were acquitted. The
appeals of the remaining accused persons were dismissed The High Court, however, confirmed the conviction and sent;inces only of the appellant Chinna
Gowda and of Rame Gowda, appellant in (...'riminal
Appeals Nos. 172 and 173 of 1961 and while affirming the conviction of the other three aooused
commuted the death sentences passed against them
to imprisonment for life. The appellants in the
two appeals were granted special leave by thi1
Court under Art. 136 of the Constitution and that
is how the appeals are now before us.
The fu.cts as alleged by the prosecution are
briefly these:
The deceased, Mariappa Gowda took up residenc" in Handigodu about eight or ten yeal'll prior
to the murder. He was an industrious and thrifty
person and soon became very prosperous. This
aroused the envy and jealousy of the appellant,
..
Chinna Gowda. In the course of years, numeroua
•··
disputes over the boundaries of fields, trespasses on
fields, the flow of water and so on arose between
the two of them. For some time prior to the
l
I
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
519
murders, the relationship between Mariappa Gowda
(deceased) and the appellant as well as Rame
Gowda, the appellant in the other appeal, became
very strained. It may be mentioned that Rame
Gowda was actually living with Mariappa Gowda
for some time and Mariappa Gowda leased out some
lands to him. Shortly thereafter, both of them
fell out and Mariappa Gowda was anxious to evict
Rame Gowda, from the leased lands. Mariappa
Gowda was, therefore, reluctant to issue receipts
for rent paid by Ra.me Gowda, to him. This
annoyed the latter. Eventually, however, on the
intervention
of Chandiah
Hegde, P. W. 67,
Mariappa Gowda passed a receipt in favour of Rame
Gowda. To his surprise, Rame Gowda, however,
found that the receipt <'ontained false recitals to
the effect that he had surrendered the leased land
to Mari>ippa Gowda. He, therefore, complained
about thi~ to Chandiah who promised to settle the
matter. In thA meanwhile, Ra.me Gowda's anger
increased. One day,
he actually stopped the
bullock cart of Mariappa and challenged him to try
and evict him from the leased lands. Sometime
thereafter he complained to one Singappagowda
that Mariappa had cheated him and said "you will
see what I will do to him in a few days." According to the prosecution, the remaining accused were
the friends of the appellant, Chinna Gowda but it
is not suggested that they had any personal
grievance against Mariappa Gowda.
It is common ground that Mariappa's house
is situated about a furlong and a half of the house
of Chinn& Gowda and that no other house than
Chinna Gowda's is nearer Mariappa's house. Mariappa lived there with his wife Bellamma and six
children. Since he was living in an isolated place,
he had kept a dog. He also used to keep a light-burning outside his house. Further, he had a gun which
was D8U&IIJ kept loaded in the house. Few daJB
1161 •
Chlnoa fJowd•
...
·s1at1 ,,f JL-,1or
llludl>lkar J,
IHI
Ch .... G.Wo
••
Slate of M,,.,.
Jludholl;•r J,
520
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS (1963)
before the incident, the dog had died but the ca.use
of the death of the dog is not known.
Between 6.30 and 7.00 a.m. on the morning
of February 13, 1958, P.W. 12 Narayan of Handigodu who was employed as a labourer by Mariappa
Gowda, went, as usual, to bis master's house.
He
was horrified to find that all the doors of tho house
were open and the inmate• of' the house were lying
on their beds in pools of blood, having been done
to death by someone. Thereupon he went to the
house of one Harithal Chandegowda, P.W. 31, and
informed him of what he had seen. Both of them
along with another man proceeded to the village
Handigodu. Eventually, the firet information was
lodged with the police who commencr.d investigation.
After investigation, the seven accused persons and
P.W. 40, Venkappa Naika, who later turned an
approver in t.he case, were arrested in connection
with the murders. During the course or the investigation, P.W. 40, Venkappa Naika, accused No. 3
Manjappa Gowda, and aocusad No. 4, Manjappa
Naika, maJe confessions. Venkappa Naika was
tendered a conditional pardon on his agreeing to
give eviclence on behalf of the prosecution. At
the committal stage, all the three persons retracted
their confessions. However, all the alleged participants in the crime, except Venkappa Naika, were
sent up for trial and were tried by tho Additional
Sessions Judge, Chikmagalur.
At that trial Venkappa. Naika gave evidenoe
for the prosecution on the linC11 of his confession,
saying that he had retracted the confessions at
the oommita.l stage as the appellant: Chinn& Gowda
had threatened to kill him. The learned Additional
Slll!Bione Judge, relying ma.inly on the evidenoe of
•
..
the a.ppover, as corroborated by the retracted
.-
confoBBioos of two of the atlCused persons, convicted
.-icl BBQtenoed aU the aoomed penooa u alread1
! J
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS
521
stated. In addition to the evidence of the approver,
the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of two
witnesses, P.W. 16, Dugamma, a neighbour of Chin·
na Gowda and P.W. 59 Mariappa, son of Ra.me
Gowda, an agricultural servant of Chinna Gowda.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge, as well as
the High Court, believed their evidence
and
regarded
it as affording
some corroboration
to the evidence of the approver. The prosecution
further relied upon the fact that just prior to the
date of the murders, Chinna. Gowda, who was
heavily pressed for money, had arranged to obtain
a loa.n of Rs. 600/-
for one T. Shivaiah alias T.
Shivaswamy, P.W. 75, who had agreed to advance
·it to him on February 13, 1958. Inspite of T.
Shivaiah agreeing to advance the loan, China
Gowda did not go to his house on the appointed
day. The suggestion is that after committing the
murders, all the accused persons looted the cash
and jewellery found in that house and the ca.eh
was retained by China Gowda with himself, Finally, the courts below have relied upon the circumstance that the accused person, in particular
the appellants in the two appeals before us, did not,
like other innocent villagers, go to make enquiry
about the incident or go to the hospital w.'1ere the
dead bodies were taken.
The evidenoe of P.W. 16, Duggamma and that
of P.W. 59, Mariayappa does not afford corrobora·
tion to the evidence of the approver on m11terial
particulars and in fact two· of the statements made
by the latter contradict the ·evidence of the approver on some important points. Thesubstantial
material on which the case rests is thus the evidence
of. the approver and the retracted confessions of
two of the accused persons.
The question, therefore, is whether conviction
of the appellants oou Id be sustained on the basis of
tbis '.ID&teria,l. ".fbere iii! :,o doubt tba.t s, 133 of tho
IHI
Chinn• GolJlflo
••
Slate •f Jlpo,,
Mudholta J.
1961
Cli iftna C"'"4
••
Ste11 •f .~y1•r1
Jlullrolf.ar J.
522
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1963]
Evidence Act does not debar the court from basing
the conviction of an accused person on the evidence
of the approver alone but a.a h~e been observed in
a large number of cases, including the decision of
the Privy Council in Bhuboni Sahu v. The King(')
the Courts, as a matter of prudence, always require
that the evidenoe of the approver should be corroborated in mu.torial particulars. Thie rule has
been
founded on a. 114(b) of the Evidence Act
which enables the Court to presume that an accomplioe is not worthy of credit unless he is corroborated in material particulars, The need for such
corroboration would be all the more greater where,
as here, the approver, apart from being a person
of bad character by reason of his participation in a.
heinous crime, cannot be ea.id to be a man of truth
since he had resiled from his confession before the
committing magistrate. This circumstance emphasizes, if emphasis was necessary, tho need for requiring corroboration to his evidence in material particulars.
The substance of the evidence of the approver,
Venkappa Naika, is this. On the day prior to the
incident the appellant Chinna. Gowda met him at
Thyava~anda. Anga.di when both of them were
returning to their villa.go from Sringeri. Venka.ppa
Na.ika.,
it may be mentioned, is a.
bootlegger.
Chinna. Gowda. a.eked him whether he had any
'arrack' available and upon Venka.ppa. Na.ika. answering in the affirmative, Chinna. Gowda gave him
Rs. 5/- and asked him to take two bottles of arrack
to his house the next evening as there was a
party at his house. Accordillgly, on the next day,
i.e., on the dg.y of the incident, Venkappa Naika
w!lnt there in the evening carrying with him two
bottles of arrack. He did not see Chinna Gowda. but
saw Manjappa Gowda, accused No. 3, grooming two
bullocks in front of the house. He, therefore.
(I~ (l!Mll) LR. 76 J.A. lt7.
,.
2 s.c.R.
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS
523
enquired of him where Chinna Gowda was. On
being told by Manjappa Gowda to go to .tho areca.
garden where Chinna Gowda would shortly be go·
ing, Venka.ppa Na.ika. went there. He uoticed three
of the accused persons, Shivappa Naika, Rame
Gowda (appellant in the other. appeal) and Gunde
Gowda sitting under a jack fruit tree. A little
later Manjappa Naika who is· accused No. 4 came
there and was followed shortly after by Chinna
Gowda and Ramappa Naika who is accused No. 5
in the case and Manijappa Gowda. The latter
brought 'rotti' and chicken and curry.
Thereafter,
all the persors . present were served with arrack.
Then they had a meal consisting of chicken curry
and rotti which was served by the Manjappa
Gowda. After finishing their meals they again had
a round of arrack. While they were having arrack,
Cbinna Gowda said. "Handigodu Mariappa Gowda
is harassing me. We must go and finish him today". Thereupon,
Shivappa Naika ~aid, "work
must be done carefully. Whatever punishment
may be meted out, you should not open your
mouth. I
am _there to see to the rest." A{ter
that, China Gowda t.ook Shivappa to his house and
left him there and returned alone to the garden.
By that time jt was midnight. All of them then
got up and at the instance of Chiima Gowda went
to the house of the deceased Mariappa Gowda.
China Gowda, Manjappa Gowda, Maojappa Naika,
Rama Gowda and the approver, Venkappa Naika
each had a chopper with him. On the way, Chinna
Gowda observed "We should not leave even a
worm.
You must do the work carefully."
On reaching the house of Maria.ppa Gowda
they noticed a bed-lamp burning on the Jagali
which was put out by Chinna Gowda. He, as well
as Ra.me Gowda, had torches with them and they
flashed them now 1md again. Thel\ Rame Gowda
struck on the neck of Ma.ria.ppa. Gowda. who wu
OhinM CouHI•
v.
Slate of M;y•or1
'"\£ udholkar J.
r
1961
Chtnn• Cow'"
v.
Sl•l1 oj M,s111
M udholAttr J.
-•
624
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1963J
sleeping on the jagali, with the chopper in his hand.
Chinna Gowda dealt a similar blow on the neck of
Bellamma who
w&& sleeping close to llfariappa.
The approver, himself struck Bcllamma on her
head.
Ra.me Gowda. next struck a male child on
his neck with his chopper.
It appears that the
others were just looking on.
Chinna Gowda looking at Manja.ppa Naika said, "Why a.re you looking
on, fool ?" Whereupon that person struck on the
neck of Gunda, the eldest son of Mariappa Gowda
with his chopper. Thereafter, Cbinna Gowda.,
Manja.ppa Gowda. and Rame Gowda. went inside
tho house and murrlered the four children of
Ma.riappa. Gowda. who were sleeping there. Then
Chinna Gowda re-lighted the bed lamp which had
been blown out earlier, took out tho bunch of keys
from the waist of Mariappa Gowda, opened the
Jock of one of the rooms of the house and took
out from it a trunk. He opened the lock of the
trunk. This trunk contained a gold chain, a pair
of bugudis, three gold rings and one gold flower.
It also contained two bundles of currency notes.
Chinna Gowda. took possession of all these articles.
In the meanwhile
Harne Gowda
removed the
gold ear-rings from the ears of Bellamma as well
as .removed her 'ma.ni-sa.ra' whioh she was wearing
on her neck and . handed them over to Chinna
Gowda.
Chinna Gowda wrapped up the jewellery
in a. towel aud handed it over to Ramappa Naika
but
he
kept the currency notes with himself.
Thereafter
the
party
left
the
house
of
Ma.riappa. They went to a na)a nearby nnd washed
their hands &8 well as the choppers. On their way
back to the house of Chinna Gowda; the latter said,
••Let tho commotion be over. Thereafter let us
distribute the gold and the money.
Let no one
demand it now. There is Shivappa Na.ika.
We
shall distribute it." Thereupon Manjappa Naika,
Rame Gowda and Gunde Gowda. went to their
reepective ho\UIC!6 while Cllinna Gowda, Manjap\>8'
2 S.O.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
525
Gowda and Ramappa Naika, went to the house of
Chinna Gowda. The approver went along with
them. After reaching the house, Chinna Gowda
took the jewellery from Ramappa Naika which he
kept inside the house. Chinna Gowda gave the
approver a 'kambal' and 'asked him to sleep on the
jagali.
He, therefore, slept there along with
Majappa Gowda and Manjappa Naika while Chinna
Gowda himself slept inside the house. Early in the
morning, the approver left Chinna Godwa's house
and went to his own house.
What is first to be considered is the evidence
of P. W. 16, Duggamma and that of P. W. 59,
Maryappa, sun of Rame Gowda. We have already
indicated that it does not afford corroboration to
the evidence of the approver. The former stated in
his evidence that just when she was going to bed
she heard Ramappa Naika saying, "Torch light
fell." At that time, Chinna Gowda and Manjappa
Gowda were with him and all the three of them
were on the jagali. There is no reference whatsoever to the Clashing of the torch in the evidence of
the approver. All that could be said is that there
is perhaps a partial corroboration to the statement
of the approver that while some of the participants
in the crime were sit.ting in the areca garden early
in the evening, Chinn& Gowda. and Rammappa
Naika came there together and were followed shortly after by Manjappa Gowda. But much importance cannot be attached to a partial corroboration.
Later in her evidence, Duggamma stated that she
woke up during the night and noticed torch light
being flashed on her jagali. Just then Chinna
Gowda came near the jagali. Thereupon she asked
"who is it". On that, Chinna Gowda said: "No
one. Have you not got sleep. Sleep on." Now,
according to the approver, he was accompanying
Chinna Gowda a.t that time, but there is no reference whatsoever to the incident in his evidence.
196•
Chin.na Gowda
'"
Stat# of M11s1r1
Mutlbo/kar J.
JMI
Clu'nna G(JtDia
"
s1.t1 of Jly1(1fe
Mudhollt.,. .J.
526
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1963]
In the circumstances, it cannot afford any corro boration to any part of the evidence of the approver.
Now, coming to the evidence of P. W. 59,
Maryappa, son of Rame Gowda, who waa a eervant
of Chinna Gowda, wh'tt he eays is that on the evening of the date of the incident, the approver,
Veokappa Naika came to his master'8 house and
asked Manjappa Gowda where the appellant Chinna
Gowda w&s.
Thereupon Manjappa Gowda told him
that Chinna Gowda was not at home, and perhaps
had gone somewhere. After hearing this, Ven kappa
Naika went towards the garden at about 9.00 or
9.30 p. m. While the witness was sitting on his
bed on the jagali of Chinna Gowda' a house, Chinna
Gowda and Ramappa Na.ika came to the house and
had
their
meals.
Thereafter Chinna Gowda,
Manjappa Gowda and Ra.mappa Naika sat talking
on the jagali.
When they were chatting he saw a
torch light being flashed on a tree near the house.
Thereafter, a.II these three persons got up sn.ying
that they should go to tho garden and accordingly
went there.
Five or ten minutes later, they ca.me
back to the house. Chinna Gowda warned the witness not to mention to any one about the fla.ahirig
of the torch. The witness 1 hen wont to sleep and
got up at 6.00 or 6.30 n. m.
He then found Chinna
Gowda and Ramappa Nai!m still in bed on the
jagali.
Instead of affording any corroboration to the
evidence of tho approver, the evidence of this witness contra.diets the approver on several points.
Naw according to the approver, ho went to the
garden of being told by Ma.njappa Gowda to do so,
but that is not what the witness says.
According
to the witnoss, Chinna Gowda a.ml Ramappa Naika
had their food in the housr and thereafter, after
the torch light was flashed, they went inside tho
areoa. garden.
According to tht• approver, a.II the
participants in the crime had arrack as well aa
•
, .. ~
l
2 s.c.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORT8
527
chicken curry and 'rotti' ·in the garden, that the
whole party got up at mid-night, Chinna Gowda
returned to the house with Shivappa, then came
back to the garden after leaving him and then they
all went towards the house of the deceased, Mariappa Gowda ... According to the witness, not only
Chinna Gowda and Ramappa Naika had their meal&
in the house but that they returned to the jagali
five or ten minutes after they went to the garden
and it was then 9.30 p.m. Thie is wholly inoc:insistent-with an important part of the story as narrated
by the approver. Finally, while, according to the
approver, Chinna Gowda slept inside the house on
the night in question, the witness says. that he
slept on the jagali.
Considering, therefore, the
evidence of the witness as a whole, it must be said
. that far from affording corroboration to the evidence of the approver on material particulars, it contradicts the evidence of the approver at least with
respect to one fact which is material and that is the
entire party leaving the garden at midnight for the
house of Mariappa Gowda. If the evidence of·the
witness is true it would seem that Chinna Gowda,
instead of going to the house of Mariappa Gowda, ·
along with others returned to his house and slept
on his jagali.
For, he does not say that after
coming back from the garden at 9.30 p.m., Chinna
Gowda again went there. No doubt, the approver
said that before going to the house of Mariappa,
Chinna Gowda went with Shivappa to his house and
then returned immediately. But aooording to him
it was at midnight and not a~ 9.30 p.m. Thus, far
from corroborating the evidence of the approver in
so far as the participation of the appellant Chinna
Gowda is concerned, the evidence of this witness
tends to contradict it.
Then there is the corroboration, said to be
afforded by the retracted confessions of the accused
Manjappa Gowda and Manjappa Naika. We have
not been taken through the oonfelisions of these
1981
Chinna Guu:da
Mudholkor J.
IHI
CAi .... C.Wda
..
StoleofM}lsffl
M tJ/iolW J.
528
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS fl963J
twq persons but we will a.ssame tha.t these two
persons tell tho sa.me story a.a the a.pprov.-ir but the
question ia whether the confeseions oa.n safely be
relied upon sa affording corroboration to the evidence of the approver.
Since the a.ppella.nts and the confessing accused persona, Manjappa Gowda and Manjappa Na.ika
were trfod jointly for the same series of offences,
their confoseiona can be used against the appellants
under s. 30 of the Evidence Act. But a. confession
cannot be regarded as a. piece of satisfactory evidence because it is not ma.de in the presence of the
person or persons whom it incriminates a.nd con.
sequently oa.nnot be tested by croes.exa.mination.
A conf688ion, therefore, is a much weaker type of
evidence than the evidence of the approver which
is not subject to such an infirmity. No doubt, by
virtue of s. 30 they can, as pointed out in Bhub<mi
SaJvu's case (cit. sup.) can b) taken into consideration by the Court and thereby tr~ted as evidence
upon which the court ma.y a.ct, but s. 30 does not
sa.y that the confession a.mounts to proof.
In
Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1) this
Court has approved of the decision in Bhuboni
Sahu's CMe and obsel'Ved :
"But ca.ses may a.rise where tho judge is
not prepared to a.ct on the other evidence as
it stands even though, if believed, it would be
Rufficient to sustain a conviction. In such an
event the judge ma.y call in a.id the confes~ion
and use it to lend assure.nee to the other
e~ence a.nd thus fortify himself in believing
what without the aid of the confesaion he
would not be prepared to a.ooept."
After making these observations this Court
has pointed out the danger of using the testimony
of one accomplice to corroborate another because
(1) (1952) S. C. R. 526, 530.
·-
''I
'
'
2 s.c;n.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
529
for one thing evidence consisting of the confession
· of the accomplice cannot be tested by cross-.
examination.
Relying upon illustration (b) to e. 114 of the
Evidence Act it was contended on behalf of the
Crown in Bhubani Sahu's case (I) that where several
participants in the alleged crime have in their separate confession implicated a particular person as
being the oulprit and there was no previous concert
amongst the confessing accused, there was no reason
to reject their confessions and that the evidence of
the approver which, as here, was the primary evidence in the case should be regarded as being
sufficiently corroborated by such confessions. The
argument was rejected by the Privy Council on
several grounds. One of the grounds was that the
confessing accused had been produced before the
magistrate together for recording their confessions.
Then they pointed out at p. 157 :
"............... whilst appreciating that the
coincidence of a number of confessions of coaooused all implicating the particular accused,
given independently, and without an opportunity of previous consent, might be entitled' to
great weight (their Lordships) would nevertheless observe· that courts should be slow to
depart from the rule of prudence, based on
long experience, which requires some independent evidence implicating the
particular
accused. The danger of acting on accomplice
evidence is not merely that the aocomplice is
on his own admission a man of bad character
who took part in the offence and afterwards
to save himself betrayed his former associates, and who has placed himself in a position
in which he oan hardly fail to have a strong
bias in favour of the prosecution; the real
(I) (1'49) L.R. l'& I.A. lt7.
I96B -
v.
Stat• of MJIWI
Mudholkar J.
11111
aiirrraQowJo
v.
Stak of Jl,-1
JI uditol /tar J.
530
SUPREME OOlJRT REPORTS [1963]
ci qer is tha.t he is telling a story which in
its genera.I outline is true, and it is tasy for
him to wqrk into the story matter which is
."
untrue.
He may implicate ten people in a.n
offence, and the story ma.y be true in all its
deta.ils a.e to eight of them, but untrue a.e to
the other two, whose na.mee ha.ve been introduced
because they a.re
enemies of the
approver."
It would appear from the record of these a.ppeals
that the oonfessions of the approver and Ma.njanppa.
Gowda were
recorded on the same day, i.e.,
March 27, 1958 by Mr. V. Heva.nna, ~la.gietra.te,
First Class, Chikamagalur, while tha.t of Ma.njappa.
Na.ika wa.s recorded
by a.nother Magistrate on
Ma.rch ~9, 1958. Mr. V. Rcvanna. was examined as
P. W. 41 in this case and he ha.s eta.ted in evidence
that he received a requisition from the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Mr. Rama.swamy on
Ma.rch 22, 1958 for recording the confeseional statements of Ma.njappa. Gowda and the approver,
Venkappa. Naika and those perRons were produced
before him on that very day. He informed .them
that thereafter thev would be removed from the
police ouatody and then he remanded them to the
judioial Jock-up till March 24, 1958.
He also wld
them that they were not hound to make any confessions.
As, however, he was on oaeua.l leave
from March 23, 1958 to March 26, 1958, they were
produced before him on Maroh 27, 1958. It would
appear tha.t these persons were in the police lock-up
since their arrest till March 22, 1958 and were
actually brought together to the magistrate's oourt.
There is nothing to show that they wer1o kept
separate. In the circumstances there is no guarantee that the accounts which they have given of the
incident in their confessions were independent and
without previous concert. Therefore, apart from
being a very weak type of evid .. noe, there is an
..
•
2 s.c.R.
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS
531
absence of intrinsic evidence in the confession of
Manjappa Gowda which would go to provide an
assurance that it is· true in all its details.
It may
be that the general outline of the incident given by
Manjappa Gowda is correct but insofar as it iropli·
ca.tea the appellants before us there is no guarantee
about its truth. We cannot, therefore, regard that
confession as affording corroboration to the evidence
of the approver.
The defect which we have pointed out with
respect to the confession of Manjappa Gowda does
not appe.ar to be present in Manjappa Naika's confession. He was first produced before a magistrate
for recording his confession on March 27, 1958, and
was then remanded by the Magistrate to judicial
custody till March 29, 1958. It is possible that
since this persons was arrested on March 15, 1958
by which date the approver and the other accused
including Manjappa Gowda had presumably been
arrested, tlrey may have been in police custody
together for some time. It is, however, not clear
from the record whether they were kept in custody
at the same place. The circumstance appearing in
the Privy Council case may, therefore! not be pre·
sent in so far, as he is concerned. A I the same we
find that there is one grave infirmity in his confes•
sion. The record does not show that when Manjappa Naika was produced before a magistrate on
Ma.r()h 27, 1958, and remanded by him to the
judicial custody he was given due warning by the
magistrate and told that he · should reflect whether
he should make any confession at all.
In his
eumination as witness No. 44, the magistrate,
Mr. K. S. Malle Gowda has stated as follows :
"On March 27, 1958, the Deputy Superintendent of p.olice produced before me A·4
. ..___.
Manjappa Naika and· gave me the requisition,
Ext. P. 23. for recording his statement under
1941
Olli•aa Ge.,da
••
81dle •f MJI••"
Mw!AolTtlw J,
J96J
CAir.na G.w•a
v.
Start oj M,..,,
M.flholllar J.
532
SUPREME 001.JRT REPORTS [J1163J
s. 164, Cr. P.C. On that, I remanded A-4 Manjappa Naika to the judicial custody till March
29,
1958.
Aocordiiigly,
on
March 29,
"
1958, he was produced before me in my Court
hall by the Sub-Jail authority at about 11.00
a.m.''
Thereafter he said that he asked the usual preliminary questions and then recorded the statement
of Manjappa Na.ika.
No doubt, it would appear
that on Mai ell 29, 1958, the Magistrate asked M&Jlf
jappa Naika whether he wanted time to think over
the matter to which the latter replied: "write",
presumably meaning thl'reby that he did not want
time. That, however, iA not sufficient compliance
with the requirements of law. It has been pointed
out by this Court in Sarwan Singh v. 'l'he State of
Punjab(') that when an accused person is produced
by the invl'Stigating officer before the Magistrate
for recording his confeBBion, it is of the utmost
importance ~hat· his mind should be completdy free
from any p 'BBible influence of the police and he
must be sen; to Jail custody and given adequate
time to consiJer whether he should make a confession at all.
Jt. is true· that here Manjappa Naika,
after being produced by the Investigating officer
before a Magiatrate for recording his confession the
latter remanded him to the judicial custody upto
March 29, 1958, i.e., for two days but it We.I! necesllllJ"Y for the magistrate to make it clear to Manjappa
Naika that he We.I! not bound to.make the confession and that if he 'me.de the confession, it w&B
likely to be used against him and that, therefore,
he should reflect whether he should make any
confeBSion at a.II.
It does not appear from tho
evidence of the Magistrate Mr. Mall'l Gowda that
he brought these important matters to the notice
of Manjappa Naika while remandmg him to t,he
(I) [1957] s.c.R. 9S3.
•
•
2 S.C.R.
stTPREME COURT REPORTS
033
judicial custody. In the circumstance, the confes·
sion is not one upon which a Court can properly act.
That leaves for consideration only one circums·
tance on which the High Court has relied and that
is the failure of the appellant, Chinua Gowda, not
to goto the house ofT, Shiviah alias T. Shivaswamy,
P. W. 75, for receiving a loan on February 13,
1958. It is said that he did not do so because he
had with him the booty collected from the house of
the deceased Mariappa Gowda and, therefore, he
no longer stood in need of raising the loan. There
may be various reasons why Chinna Gowda did
not keep his appointment but even assumiJ!.g that
he had come by some money and .that this happened
·as a result of the incident which took place on the
night between February 12 and 13, 1958, it would
not be legitimate to conclude that he had himself
participated in the murders.
Thus we are Ieft only with the evidence of the
approver.
As already pointed out, his evidence
suffers froin two infirmities: on his own showing he
is a man of bad character, and further in the court
of the committing magistrate he went back upon
his confession before Mr. Revanna, Magistrate First
Class. Again he is a person whose business is to
manufacture illicit liquor. . Thus, apart from parti·
cipating in the heinous crimes which were perpe·
trated on the riight in question, he has been leading
a life of a law.breaker. His evidence, standing by
itself, cannot, therefore, carry conviction. Indeed
;neither the. Sessions Judge nor the learned Judges
of the High Court regarded liis evidence as bring
sufficient to justify conviction of the various accused
persons. In the circumstances we must hold that
his evidence. cannot safely be regarded as the sole
Qasis for resting the conviction of the, two appellants before us.
1962
Chittna. Gowda
...
S tsle of M,sore
Mudholk4'J.
CMnna Gow.ta
v.
S1.i. .J Jlysor•
MtMIAalk., J.
534
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [l963J
We, therefore, allow ea.oh of the two appeals,
set a.side the conviction a.nd sentences
pa.BBed
a.gs.inst the the a.ppella.nts and direct tha.t they be
set at. liberty.
Apptal8 allcwe.d.
IHI
THE REGIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER
April 27.
o.
SUNDERDAS BHASIN
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., P. B. GAJENDRA.GAD.KAR, K. N.
WA.Nonoo, N. RA.JAGOPALA. AYYA.NGA.R a.nd
T. L. VENKA.TA.RA.MA. AIY AR, JJ.)
Rthahilitation of
DUp/actd per.!OM-Compenaation for
rural buildill{l1-Not payabl< for rural building valtud at IU4
than&. 10,000-More than cme rural building each valutd""
lw than Ra. 10,000-Wht.th<r valti< ean be add<d up to reaeh
total of Rs 10,000-Displaeed Perll01&8 (CompeMaation and
R<Mbilitation), Ru/.,, r. 65.
The respondent, a displaced person, had agricultural
land as well as houses in the rural area in what iJ now Wcat
Pakistan. Each house was valued at ICM than Rs. 10,000J· but
the total value of all the houses was more than Rs. I 0,000/-.
He was allowed 2-1/2 acres of land in lieu of the agricultural
land left by him.
He applied for compensation for the rural
hOU3CJ,
This claim was rejected on the !!"Ound that It was
barred by r. 65 Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules.
Ruic 65(2) provided that any person to
whom less than 4 acrea of agricultural land had been allotted
shall not be entitled to receive compcnoation sepa'tately in
respect of any rural building the assessed value of which was
less than Rs. I0,000/-. The respondent contended that in
order to determine the limit of Rs. 10,000 in r. 65(2) the
value of all the rural buildingi should be added up.
Htld, that r. 65(2) applied to the ca"' and the ""J'llR•
dent was not entitled to compensation for the rural bOUlcs
left by him in Pallitan. When r. 65(2) spcal<s of any l;uildlng the assessed value of which iJ Rs. I 0,000/- it refers to
each building being
of less than that value;
docs not
"
•