What is the key rule about accomplice evidence?

Law allows acting on accomplice evidence, but the safe practice is to seek independent corroboration on material points before convicting.

Can a Section 164 CrPC statement prove facts by itself?

No. A Section 164 statement is not substantive evidence. It may support or attack the witness who made it, but it cannot alone prove the facts.

Can one accomplice corroborate another?

No. One accomplice cannot clean or confirm another accomplice. Tainted evidence repeated remains tainted.

How strong is a co-accused confession under Section 30 IEA?

It is weak. The Court may consider it, but it is not proof by itself and must be weighed with other independent evidence.

What was the final outcome in this case?

The conviction was set aside. The appeal succeeded because there was no proper corroboration of the approver’s story.

Law Easy

01 January, 1970

1401

Bhuboni Sahu v. The King (1949) — Accomplice Evidence under IEA | The Law Easy

Bhuboni Sahu v. The King (1949)

Evidence & Criminal Law Court: Privy Council/HC Year: 1949 Citation: — Author: Gulzar Hashmi Reading time: ~7 min

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Accomplice Evidence Section 164 CrPC

Quick Summary

This case teaches how courts must handle accomplice (approver) evidence. The prosecution relied on an approver’s story, a co-accused’s confession under Section 164 CrPC, and some recovered items. The Privy Council said: law allows conviction on accomplice evidence, but the safe rule is to demand independent corroboration on important points. A co-accused confession is weak and cannot by itself prove facts. Here, corroboration was missing. So, the conviction was set aside.

CASE_TITLE: Bhuboni Sahu v. The King PUBLISH_DATE: 03-Apr-2024 AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi LOCATION: India Slug: bhuboni-sahu-v-the-king-1949

PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: accomplice evidence; corroboration; Section 30 IEA; Section 133 IEA SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: Section 164 CrPC; co-accused confession; IPC 302/34; Indian Evidence Act

```

Issues

Was there reliable evidence to convict the appellant?
How should courts treat an approver’s testimony, a co-accused confession, and a Section 164 statement?

Rules

Section 302/34 IPC

Punishment for murder; common intention principle may apply when multiple persons act together.

Section 133 IEA

Accomplice is a competent witness. A conviction is not illegal merely because it rests on accomplice testimony.

Section 30 IEA

Confession of a co-accused may be considered, but it is weak and not proof by itself; needs other evidence.

Section 164 CrPC

Statement is not substantive evidence; can only support or challenge that witness’s testimony in court.

Facts (Timeline)

11 Oct 1946: Kalia Behara, a jutka driver from Berhampur, was murdered on the road towards Golantra while driving passengers.

Trial: Several people were prosecuted for murder under Sec. 302/34 IPC. The trial judge convicted six, including the appellant (accused no. 7) and Trinath (accused no. 5).

Appeal in HC: Patna High Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the convictions.

Before Privy Council: The case turned on the value of the approver’s evidence, Trinath’s retracted Sec. 164 confession, and recovered items (loin cloth and grass-cutter).

Arguments

Appellant

Approver is unreliable; needs strong independent corroboration.
Trinath’s Sec. 164 confession is weak and later retracted; cannot prove guilt.
Recovered items do not connect the appellant to the murder in a sure way.

Respondent (State)

Approver’s story is detailed and consistent with the crime.
Confession plus recoveries support the narrative.
Trial and High Court properly upheld conviction.

Judgment

The Privy Council allowed the appeal. It held that while accomplice evidence is legally admissible, the safe rule of practice is to require corroboration on material points. A co-accused confession under Section 30 IEA is weak and, like a Section 164 statement, cannot by itself prove facts. One accomplice cannot corroborate another. Since proper independent corroboration was missing, the conviction could not stand.

Ratio

Courts may consider accomplice evidence (Sec. 133 IEA) and a co-accused confession (Sec. 30 IEA), but neither is enough without independent corroboration on key facts. Section 164 statements are not substantive evidence. Without solid external support, conviction is unsafe.

Why It Matters

Clarifies the “trust but verify” approach to approver evidence.
Sets limits on the use of co-accused confessions and Section 164 statements.
Helps students frame answers on corroboration and evidentiary prudence.

Key Takeaways

Accomplice evidence is admissible, but look for strong corroboration.
Co-accused confession is weak; cannot be the sole basis.
Section 164 statements are not substantive evidence.
One accomplice cannot corroborate another.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: C.A.R.T.

Corroborate material facts
Accomplice is competent but risky
Retracted confession (Sec. 30) is weak
Testimony under Sec. 164 is not proof

3-Step Hook:

Read the approver—then doubt.
Hunt for independent pins—facts that fix the story.
No pins? No conviction.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Whether the appellant’s conviction could stand on the approver’s evidence supported only by a co-accused confession and recoveries.

Rule

Secs. 133 & 30 IEA; Sec. 164 CrPC; practice of requiring corroboration on material particulars for accomplice evidence.

Application

Approver’s story lacked firm independent support; the co-accused confession was retracted and weak; Section 164 statement was not substantive proof.

Conclusion

Conviction set aside; appeal allowed due to absence of material corroboration.

Glossary

Approver: An accomplice who turns witness for the prosecution.
Corroboration: Independent evidence that supports key parts of a witness’s story.
Co-accused confession: A confession by another accused in the same trial; under Sec. 30 IEA, it is weak and needs support.
Section 164 CrPC: Provision for recording statements; not substantive evidence by itself.
IPC 302/34: Murder and common intention in committing the offence.

FAQs

Accomplices may seek benefits or shift blame. So, courts want independent facts that match their story before convicting.

No. It is weak evidence. The Court may consider it, but it needs solid independent support to convict another person.

It is not proof by itself. It can be used to support or challenge the witness who made it, but not as substantive evidence of facts.

No. Repeating tainted evidence does not make it clean. Courts look for independent, reliable support.

The appeal was allowed and the conviction was set aside because proper corroboration was missing.

Comment

Nothing for now