Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.33 seconds)Bhuboni Sahu vs The King on 17 February, 1949
As the Privy
Council observe in Bhuboni Sahu v. King:
Rameshwar vs The State Of Rajasthan on 20 December, 1951
11. Then, as regards its use in the corroboration of accomplices
and approvers. A co-accused who confesses is naturally an accomplice
and the danger of using the testimony of one accomplice to corroborate
another has repeatedly been pointed out. The danger is in no way
lessened when the "evidence" is not on oath and cannot be tested by
cross-examination. Prudence will dictate the same rule of caution in the
case of a witness who though not an accomplice is regarded by the
Judge as having no greater probative value. But all these are only rules
of prudence. So far as the law is concerned, a conviction can be based
on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice provided the Judge
has the rule of caution, which experience dictates, in mind and gives
reasons why he thinks it would be safe in a given case to disregard it.
Two of us had occasion to examine this recently in Rameshwar v. State
of Rajasthan. It follows that the testimony of an accomplice can in law
be used to corroborate another though it ought not to be so used save in
exceptional circumstances and for reasons disclosed.