1989 CRI. L. J. 172 ::1988 (1) Crimes 903 ::1988 (65) CutLT 487 ::1988 (1) OrissaLR 211 ::(1988) OCR 154 ::1988 OCR 154

Orissa High Court

Hon'ble Judge(s): L. Rath , J

Evidence Act (1 of 1872) , S.133— Evidence of an accomplice - Independent corroboration is necessary - Sole evidence only of decoy witness - No corroboration by independent evidence - Explanation offered by accused probable - Charge of bribe cannot be said to be established. Prevention of Corruption Act (2 of 1947) , S.5— The evidence of an accomplice in a trap case is not worthy of acceptance unless independent corroboration is forthcoming. But however it must always be kept in mind, that independent corroboration does not mean a corroboration of every detail of what the witnesses of the raiding party have stated and all that is required even in respect of evidence of an accomplice is that there must be some additional evidence rendering it probable that the story of the accomplice is true and it is reasonably safe to act upon it. Corroboration need not be direct evidence and even circumstantial evidence in that regard would be sufficient.(Para 4) Where there was sole evidence of only the decoy witness about the taking of the bribe by the accused and it was seen that there was no evidence either direct or otherwise and the explanation given by the accused is probable the conviction of the accused is not proper as the charges could not be said to have been established.(Para 5) ....