# The University of Mysore and Anr v. C. D. Govinda Rao and Anr

- **Citation:** [1964] 4 S.C.R. 589
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1963-08-27
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeals Nos. 75, 100 and 101 of 1963
- **Bench:** S. K. DAs, AcTING C.J, M. HmAYATULLAH, K. C. DAs GUPTA
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/the-university-of-mysore-and-anr-v-c-d-govinda-rao-and-anr-3176
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Criniinal
Trial-Evidence
of
tvitness
before
con1;nztt1ng
court--Resiled iH Sessions Court-}Vhether corroboration required
-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act 5 of 1898), s. 288.
1'he appellants were conYicted by the t-Iigh Court for
co1nmi.tti11ci three 1nur<lers. In this case the liigh Court considered the
testin1ony of one HPar\Vati'', given by her in the con1mitting court.
She was an eye witness of the occurrence according to her testimony in the com1nitting court.
In the sessions court she resiled
frorn_ her previous staten1ent before the committing l\.1agistrate and
made a definite staten1ent that she had not seen the occurrence.
lier evidence before the con1mitting court was tendered as evidence
under s. 288 Criminal Procedure Code in the court of sessions.
Hr:r evidence before the con1mitting court \Vas not corroborated in
respect of p!rticipation in the occurrence by four appellants. The
I-Iigh Court convicted the appellants on the basis of the state1nent
made by Par\.vati before the committing Magistrate on the ground
that it was substantive evidence \.Vhich did not require any corroboration.
Held, that the evidence of a \Vitness tendered under s. 288
of the Code of Cri1ninal Procedure before the Sessions Court is
substantive evidence.
In law such evidence is not required to be
corroborated.
But where a person has made t\vo
contradictory
statements on oath it is ordinarily unsafe to rely implicitly on he~
1963
The University
of Mysore and
Anr.
v.
C. D. Govinda
Rao and
Anr.
Gaiendr.gadkar f.
1%3
August 27
1963
Shranappa
Mutyappa
Halkc
v.
State of
Maharashtra
Das Gupta/.
590
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1964)
evidence and the judge, before he accepts one or the other of the
state1nents as true, must be satisfied that this is so. For such
satisfaction it \Vill ordinarily be necessary for the evidence to be supported by extrinsic evidence not only as to the occurrence in gene~
ral but also about the participation o.f the accused in particular.
But in a case where even \Vithout any extrinsic evidence the judge
is satisfied about the truth of one of the statements, his duty will
be to rely on such evid::nce and act accordingly.
Rhuboni Sahu v. The King, A.LR. 1949 P.C. 257, relied cm.
On the facts of this case, it was held that \vithout corro.ba--
ration fro1n extrinsic evidence, the High Court \Vas not justified
in acting on the evidence of the only eye \vitness Par\vati, given in
the con11nitting court.

## Text

-
.
,..
..
4 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
589
which is kept as a general Register for gazetted servants
in the State. Therefore, we think there is some substance
in the contention made by the learned Attorney-General
that the harsh criticism made by the High Court against
appellant No. 1 is not fully justified.
In th.e resnlt, the appeals are allowed, the order passed
by the High Court is set aside and the writ petition filed
by the respondent is dismissed with costs throughout, There
will be one set of hearing fees in both the appeals filed
by the two appellants.
Appeals allowed.
SHRANAPPA MUTYAPPA HALKE
v.
ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA
(and connected appeals)
(S. K. DAs, AcTING C.J., M. HmAYATULLAH AND K. C. DAs
GUPTA, JJ.)
Criniinal
Trial-Evidence
of
tvitness
before
con1;nztt1ng
court--Resiled iH Sessions Court-}Vhether corroboration required
-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act 5 of 1898), s. 288.
1'he appellants were conYicted by the t-Iigh Court for
co1nmi.tti11ci three 1nur<lers. In this case the liigh Court considered the
testin1ony of one HPar\Vati'', given by her in the con1mitting court.
She was an eye witness of the occurrence according to her testimony in the com1nitting court.
In the sessions court she resiled
frorn_ her previous staten1ent before the committing l\.1agistrate and
made a definite staten1ent that she had not seen the occurrence.
lier evidence before the con1mitting court was tendered as evidence
under s. 288 Criminal Procedure Code in the court of sessions.
Hr:r evidence before the con1mitting court \Vas not corroborated in
respect of p!rticipation in the occurrence by four appellants. The
I-Iigh Court convicted the appellants on the basis of the state1nent
made by Par\.vati before the committing Magistrate on the ground
that it was substantive evidence \.Vhich did not require any corroboration.
Held, that the evidence of a \Vitness tendered under s. 288
of the Code of Cri1ninal Procedure before the Sessions Court is
substantive evidence.
In law such evidence is not required to be
corroborated.
But where a person has made t\vo
contradictory
statements on oath it is ordinarily unsafe to rely implicitly on he~
1963
The University
of Mysore and
Anr.
v.
C. D. Govinda
Rao and
Anr.
Gaiendr.gadkar f.
1%3
August 27
1963
Shranappa
Mutyappa
Halkc
v.
State of
Maharashtra
Das Gupta/.
590
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1964)
evidence and the judge, before he accepts one or the other of the
state1nents as true, must be satisfied that this is so. For such
satisfaction it \Vill ordinarily be necessary for the evidence to be supported by extrinsic evidence not only as to the occurrence in gene~
ral but also about the participation o.f the accused in particular.
But in a case where even \Vithout any extrinsic evidence the judge
is satisfied about the truth of one of the statements, his duty will
be to rely on such evid::nce and act accordingly.
Rhuboni Sahu v. The King, A.LR. 1949 P.C. 257, relied cm.
On the facts of this case, it was held that \vithout corro.ba--
ration fro1n extrinsic evidence, the High Court \Vas not justified
in acting on the evidence of the only eye \vitness Par\vati, given in
the con11nitting court.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeals
Nos. 75, 100 and 101 of 1963.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated February
27, 28, 1963 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal
No. 1077 of 1962.
S. G. PatuA:irdhan and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the appellant (in Cr. A. No. 75 of 1963).
B. B. Tawakley, Harbans Singh and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the appellants (in Cr. A. Nos. 100 and 101 of
1963).
D. R. Prem, K. L. Hathi and B. R. G. K. Achar, for
R. H. Dhebar, for the respondents.
August 27, 1963. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DAs GuPTA J.-On June 11, 1961 at 5 p.m. the road in
front of the Temple of Shri Maruti in the village of Chinchpur of Taluk Sholapur was the scene of a terrible tragedy. Three persons-Revansidappa, and his two maternal
uncles, Yellappa and Maruti were done to death there in a
most gruesome manner. Revansidappa's neck was severed
from the body, except for a piece of skin and one of his
legs was chopped off. The spinal cord and vertebra of
Yellappa were cut off. The jaw, vertebra, tongue and a
major part of the neck of Manni were cut off.
The first information that reached the police station of
this tragedy was by a letter of the village police pate! written on the same day and addressed to the Police Sub-Inspector of Mandrup. It merely stated that three murders had
taken place in course of riot and maramari at 5 p.m. in
the evening and mentioning the names of the men who
had been murdered. This letter reached the police sta-
. ' -
'
~ ..
-
-
•
4 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
591
tion at 2.30 a.m. Head Constable Bansooe who was in charge of the police station then left for the place of occurrence
after having sent a report to the Police Sub-Inspector who
was camping at Bhandrkavathe village. The Sub-Inspector reached Chinchpur at about 11 a.m. on the 12th. Some
constables had already reached
the
village.
Vishwanath, Head Constable of Mandrup with two other constables who had been on duty on the bridge over the Bhima
river which runs west of the village Chinchpur learnt of
these terrible murders at 7 p.m. on the very date of the
murders and ldt for the place, arriving at the village at
9.30 p.m. They found the three dead bodies lying there
and the Police Patel and some other persons present.
Head Constable Ram Chandra Bansooe reached the place
at 6.30 a.m. on the 12th and after making enquiries had
three persons, Gurpadappa, Parasappa and Daulappa brought to the place.
Thev were arrested by the Sub-Inspector when he arrived.
The only witness the Sub-Inspector could examine on that date was Parwati, the step
mother of the deceased Revansidappa. He found that all
the men had left the village and only women were present.
After completing the investigation the Sub-Inspector sent uμ charge-sheet against 13 persons.
All the thirteen were tried by the Sessions Judge on
a charge under s. 148 of the Indian Penal COOe, on three
charges under s. 30?/34 of the Indian Penal Code, with
three alternative charges under s. 302/149 of Indian Penal
Code and a further charge under s. 342 of the Indian Penal
Code.
Three out of the 13. viz., Gurpadappa, Parasappa
and
Annar~vct Shinbala were convicted by the learned Sessions judge under ''· 302/34 of the Indian Penal
Code on each of the three counts and sentenced to imprisonment for life. All the three were also convicted under s. 342 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to six
months' rigorous imprisonment. Gurpadappa and Annaraya were also convicted under s. 147 of the Indian Penal
Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two
years.
Parasappa was convicted under s. 148 of the Indian Penal Cope and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment
for three years. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.
The ~ther 10 accused persons were acquitted
by the learned Judge.
1963
Shranappa
Mutyappa
Halke
v.
State of
Maharashtra
Das Gupta f.
1963
Shranappd
Mutyapp•
Raike
v.
State of
Maharashtra
Das Gupta /.
592
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1964]
Gurpadappa, Parasappa and Annaraya Shivabala appealed to the High Court of Judicature at Bombay against
their conviction and sentence. Their appeal was dismissed and the conviction and sentence of Gurpadappa and
Annaraya were affirmed. Parasappa's conviction was aho
affirmed but after notice on him as to why the sentence
should not be enhanced, the sentence of life imprisonment
was enhanced to one of death. The State appealed against
the order of acquittal of all .other accused except that of
Sangappa. The High Court aliowed the State's appeal in
respect of three of these, viz., Shranappa, Ganpati and Tipanna and convicted them of the offence with which
they were charged. The High Court sentenced Shranappa to death and Ganpati and Tipanna to imprisonment for life.
The State's appeal in respect of the other
six were dismissed.
Shranappa had filed the present
appeal under Art. 134(1)(a) of the Constitution. The
other five, viz., Gurpadappa, Parasappa, Annaraya, Ganpati amd Tipann:1 were granted special leave to appeal by
this Court and on the basis of that they have filed the
appeals against the orders of conviction and sentence passed against them.
The prosecution case is that there had for sometime
been trouble between Gurpadappa and his brother Dhannappa on the one side and Parwati and the deceased Revansidappa on tk other over the possession of a plot
of land in Chinchpur. According to Parwati and Revansidappa this land had merely been ·mortgaged
to
Gurpadappa by Revansidappa's father and the debt had
been paid out and they were entitled to get back possession. To this Gurpadappa did not agree. He, however,
agreed to Parwati's request that the dispute may be settled by a Panchayat. But without calling a Panchayat Gnrpadappa and his brother started cultivating the land
on June 10.
When Parwati saw this, she protested ;
but to no purpose. The two brothers said that there would
be no Panchayat.
On the next day i.e., June
11, Revansidappa who
used to live with his maternal uncles at the neighbouring
village, Chanegaon, came to Parwati's house at Chinchpur
with his two uncles, Maruti and Yellappa. Shortly after
this all the thirteen accused persons came in front of
-
..
-
'
-
'f!
4 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
593
the house and demanded that Revansidappa, Yellappa
and Maruti should come out of the house.
When they
did not, some of the accused went on the roof of the
house and began to remove it by means of spades. Some
iron sheets were actually removed. Ultimately, at the
instance of two neighbours Gourava and Panchppa the
three unfortunate young men came out of the house.
They were led to the school which stands some way north
of Parwati's house.
From there one by one they were
taken near the Maruti Tern pie outside the V es, the village
wall and done to death. It is said that Yellappa was
struck by Parasappa and Shranappa with axes whiie the
other accused beat him with sticks.
He died instantaneously. Next was the tu:·n of Revansidappa. He was
also struck with axec by Shranappa and Parasappa and
all others with sticks.
Revansidappa died
immediately.
Maruti was brought there last of all; Parasappa and sangappa struck him with axes and the other accused with
sticks. He also died on the spot.
All the accused then
left the place.
Three of them, Gurpadappa, Parasappa and Dau!appa
were taken into custody on the very next day. Annaraya
Shivabala was arrested on June 13 and Shranappa and
Ganpati Shamraya on the following clav. Three more accused, Dhanappa, Jakanna and Ganpati Gurling were
arrested three days later. On August 6, 1961 were arrested Tipanna and Dhondappa. The remaining
accused
Sangappa surrendered in Court on October 16, 1961.
All the accused pleaded not guilty. Their case was
that they had been falsely implicated-Gurpadappa and his
brother Dhanappa because they were in po,session of the
land purchased by them, which Revansidappa
and
his
step-mother, Parwati, had been claiming and the
other
accused either on suspicion or because they had supported Gurpadappa and his brother over the land dispute.
Shrar.appa's appeal is one of right under Art. 134( l)
(a) of the Constitution.
To decide his appeal it is
therefore necessary for us to examine the evidence adduced in the case for ourselves and to see whether the
assessment of the evidence on which the High Court convicted him is proper and justified. That evidence consists in this case of the testimony of a single witness Par1963
Shra••PP•
Mutyappa
Halk_e
v.
State of
Maharashtra
Das Gupt• /.
1963
Shranappa
Mutyappa
Halke
v.
State of
Maharashtra
Das Gupta f.
594
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1%41
wati, given by her in tbe Court of the Committing Magistrate. This is undoubtedly substantive evidence, which
if believed, would be sufficient in law to support the
order of conviction.
For, it was brought on the record
of the Sessions Court under the provisions of s. 288 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure ; when in the Sessions Court
Parwati resiled from her previous statement before
the
Committing Magistrate and made a definite
statement
that she had not seen the occurrence the question has
naturally been raised whether this evidence of Parwati
which is substantive evidence at the Trial under. the provisions of s. 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure required corroboration before the Court should ~ct on it.
The question how far evidence in the Committing
Court given bv a witness who resiles from it ~t the Tri~!
in Sessions and which is brought in as evidence at the
Trial under s. 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedur.e
requires corroboration or not, has engaged the attention
of most of the High Courts in India in numerous cases.
Many such judgments have been cited before us and extensive passages have been read out from some of them.
While the dust of controversy sometimes obscnred the
simplicity of the true position, most of the learned Judges have, if we may say so, with respect, appreciated the
situation correctly. That is this. On the one hand, it is
true that corroboration of such evidence is not required
in law ; but it is equally true that in order to decide
which of the two versions, the one given in the Committing Court and the one in the Sessions Court, both of
which are substantive evidence, should be accepted,
the
Judge of facts would almost always feel inclined to look
for something else beyond this evidence itself to help his
conclusion. We cannot do better in this connection than
to quote from the observations on this question by their
Lordships of the Privy Council in Bhuboni Sahu v. Th~
King('). In that case the evidence of an approver in the
Committing Court had been brought on the record under s. 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Dealing
with the question as to the value that can be attached to
such evidence their Lordships observed thus :-
(1 )A.LR. 1949 (P.C.) 257.
-
-
•
4 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
595
"Apart from the suspicion which always attaches to
the evidence of an accomplice it would plainly be
unsafe, as the Judges of the High Court recognized,
to rely implicitly on the evidence of a man who had
deposed on oath to two different stories."
This, if we may say so, with respect, is the crux of
the question. Where a person has made two contradictory
statements on oath it is plainly unsafe to rely implicitly
on his evidence. In other words, before one decides to
accept the evidence brought in under s. 288 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure as true and reliable one has to be satisfied that this is really so.
How can that satisfaction
be reached? In most cases this satisfaction can come only
if there is such support in extrinsic evidence as to give a
reasonable indication that not only what is said about the
occurrence in general but also ,,;hat is said against the
particular accused sought to be implicated in the crime
is true. If there be a case-and there is sud; infinite variety in facts and circumstances of the cases coming before the courts that it cannot be dogmatically said
that
there can never be such a case-where even without such
extrinsic support the Judge of facts, after bearing in mind
the intrinsic weakness of the evidence, in that two different statements on oath have been made, is satisfied t11at
the evidence is true and can be safely relied upon, the
Judge will be failing in his duty not to do so.
The present is not one such case.
It is true that
Parwati has in this deposition in the Committing Court
given a detailed account of not only the incidents at the
house and the three young men, Revansidappa,
~faruti
and Yellappa being taken out of her house to the accused
persons but also as regards how they were led to the village school, how one after the other the three were taken
near the Maruti Temple, how her entreaties to spare them
were in vain and the manner of attack on each of the
v1ct1ms.
The learned Judges of the High Court appear to have been impressed by the very vividness of
this description and persuaded themselves apparently from
this alone that she was speaking t11e truth. Unfortunately the important fact that the witness had made a totally
different statement on oath in another Court and denied
to have seen the occurrence did not receive from the !ear1963
Shranappa
Mutyappa
Raike
v.
State of
Maharaslitra
Das Gupta /.
1963
Shrnn•PP•
Mu:y•PP•
Halke
v.
State of
Maharashtrll
Dns Gupta f.
596
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1964]
ned Judges the attention it deserved.
Again, the ability
to describe vividly should not be mistaken for anxiety to
speak truly. For, one often exists
without the
other.
Closer scrutiny of Parwati's statement in the Committing
Court discloses some features, at least, for which no explanation is ~vailable.
According to her account Yellappa was
first taken
from the school to the temple and that all the thirteen
took part in the attack. If that be true, there were none
of the accused party to guard Revansidappa and Maruti,
who were in the school during this time. Who however
was left to guard them? To this we find no answer from
Parwati's deposition. There is the same mystery
as
to
who was left to guard Maruti when Revansidappa was next
taken and killed-all the thirteen taking part in the attack according to her. It is also to be noticed that she does
not clearly state in this deposition where exactly she
was standing or sitting during the
occurrence.
The
place where the bodies were discovered and where undoubtedly these three young men were killed is outside
the village wall. This wall would have a door through
which, if the prosecution story is true, the victims were
taken out. Was Parwati also allowed to go out? If she
was not, could she have seen tbe actual attack on these
three persons from her place on the vi!lage side of the
Ves. We look in vain in Parwati's deposition for any answer to these questions.
Again, according to her story, three axes were used
in the attack. Only one axe was however discovered at
the place of occurrence. How is it that while two axes
were taken away the third was left behind? There may
be a good answer to this question. But none is furnished
by the evidence on the record.
This being the nature of Parwati's evidence it is, in
our opinion, clearly unsafe to accept her testimony against
any of the accused persons unless corroborated by other
evidence. In respect of Shranappa, whose appeal we are
now considering, there is admittedly no such corroboration.
It is not possible therefore to accept what Parwati
had said against this appellant as true. The High Court
has, in our opinion, fallen into error in acting on her testi-
-
-
-
..
y
-
4 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
597
mony even in the absence of corroboration. We hold
that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against
him and he must be acquitted of the charges against him.
The appeals by the other five, is by special leave of
this Court, but what we have stateJ above as regards the
need of corroboration of Parwati's testimony in the Commiting Court applies equally in respect or each of them
also.
There is no such corroboration whatsoever in respect of Parwati's story of participation in the occwrence
of Gurpadappa, Ganpati Shamraya and Tipanm. As regards the other two appellants, Parasappa and Annaraya
Shivabala, some slight corroboration has been offered by
the pr03ecution. That is in the presence 0£ stains of human blood on the soles of the Chappals seized from them
at the time of their arrest. The value of this corroboration
is considerably reduced however by the fact that before
these chappals were seized from Parasappa on June 12 and
from Annaraya Shivabala on June 13, these accused persons had been brought up to the place of
occurrence.
There is scope therefore for thinking that the soles of the
chappals became stained with blood when they walked
over the blood-stained ground. It will not be reasonable
therefore to treat the presence of these blood stains on the
soles of their chappals as sufficient corroboration of Parwati' s evidence against them. The conviction of
these
five appellants also cannot therefore stand.
Accordingly, we allow the appeals, set aside the order
of conviction and sentence passed against them and order
that they be acquitted.
Appeals allotu(d.
1963
Skr.Mppa
Mutyappa
Hatke
v.
State of
M•horashtra
D~s Gupta /.