VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 104
341
Police, whereas under the Bombay State Commissioner of Police
Act, 1959, the investigation should have been made by the
Superintendent of Police. During the trial, the Special Judge directed
a fresh investigation to the extent possible by a Superintendent of
Police. In the course of the trial several prosecution witnesses had
gone back on the statements given by them during investigation and
with the permission of the Court, some of them were cross-examined
with reference to their statements recorded during the first
investigation by the Deputy Superintendent of Police.
The appellants contended before the Supreme Court that in
view of the re-investigation the record of investigation made by the
Deputy Superintendent of Police stood wiped out and therefore
Madhukanta should not have been cross-examined with reference
to the statement alleged to have been made by her during the first
investigation. It was also contended that they were convicted solely
on the basis of the testimony of Raman Lal, Deputy Superintendent
of Police and Erulker and Santramji, who were all interested witnesses
and their evidence not having been corroborated by any independent
evidence, the same was insufficient to base the conviction.
The Supreme Court held that it is true that the first
investigation was not in accordance with law, but yet it is in no sense
‘non est’. Both the trial court and the High Court have accepted the
evidence of Raman Lal and Dayabhai (Panch witness) in preference
to that of Madhukanta that the first appellant was in possession of
the post card on 18-2-63. This is essentially a finding of fact and the
courts did not ignore any legal principle in coming to that conclusion.
The Supreme Court further held that it is now well settled by
a series of decisions of the Supreme Court that while in the case of
evidence of an accomplice, no conviction can be based on his
evidence unless it is corroborated in material particulars, as regards
the evidence of a partisan witness it is open to a court to convict an
accused solely on the basis of that evidence, if it is satisfied that that
evidence is reliable. In the instant case, the trial court and the High