The evidence of an unreliable witness cannot be relied upon to convict a person of an offence.

Headnote:
OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT - S. 5(4) - Accomplice - Evidence of accomplice - Corroboration - Necessity - Witness unreliable - Conviction cannot be based solely on his testimony.
Fact of the Case:

The respondent was convicted under S. 5(4) of the Indian Official Secrets Act for receiving secret government documents. The High Court set aside the conviction, holding that the only evidence against the respondent was that of an accomplice, which required corroboration. The State of Delhi appealed to the Supreme Court.
Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in treating the witness as an accomplice, but that even if the witness was not an accomplice, the respondent could not be convicted unless the witness was found to be a truthful witness. The Court found that the witness was unreliable and that his evidence could not be relied upon to convict the respondent.
Issues: 1. Whether the witness was an accomplice whose evidence required corroboration. 2. Whether the witness was a truthful witness whose evidence could be relied upon to convict the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the witness was not an accomplice because the offence under S. 5(4) of the Act was complete the moment the respondent received the secret documents, and the witness was not committing any offence under the Act when he received the document from the respondent. 2. The Court held that the witness was unreliable because his testimony was inconsistent and contradictory, and because he had been won over by the respondent.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed and the respondent was acquitted.

Judgment

IMAM, J. : This appeal is by special leave by the State of Delhi against the judgment of the Pubjab High Court acquitting the respondent of an offence punishable under S. 5(4) of the Indian Official Secrets Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) alleged to have committed by him.

2. The respondent was convicted by the trial Court and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 1,000 in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. His appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge of Delhi. The High Court in its revisional jurisdiction set aside the conviction and sentence.

3. The ground upon which the High Court set aside the conviction was that the only evidence upon which the respondent could be convicted was that R. C. Aggarwal, P. W. 10, who was to be looked upon as an accomplice. His evidence accordingly required corroboration in material particulars connecting or tending to connect the respondent with the crime. As there was no such corroboration it was impossible to convict the respondent on the sole testimony of Aggarwal.

4. In the petition for special leave a ground was taken to the effect that the High Court erred in law in regarding Aggarwal as an accomplice as the High Court had failed to notice that on the words of S. 5(2) of the Act the offence punishable under S. 5(2) of the Act the offence punishable under S. 5(4) was complete the moment the respondent received the secret documents in question and Aggarwal was not committing any offence under the act when he received the document from the latter who had directed him to make copies thereof.

5. In this appeal we do not propose to construe the provisions of S. 5(2) of the Act as the appeal can be disposed of otherwise.

6. The witness Aggarwal was looked upon as an accomplice by the High Court. We express no opinion in this respect. Even on the assumption that the High Court erred in treating the evidence of Aggarwal as that of an accomplice, the respondent cannot be convicted unless Aggarwal is found to be a truthful witness.

7. Shortly stated, the prosecution case was that the respondent, who was one of the two proprietors of the firm, somehow obtained a secret file of the Government containing office nothing relating to illegal import of certain goods and the penalties which it was proposed to award to the offenders. This file was copied out by Aggarwal, employed as a typist in the respondent s firm, sometime towards the end of November, 1950. The office of the firm was searched on February 5, 1951, and two copies of the documents typed were recovered and seized. The prosecution case further was that the respondent was interested in the secret file in question as there were at the time proceedings pending against his firm for illegal import of certain goods.

8. It is manifest that unless the evidence of Aggarwal is believed there can be no conviction of the respondent as the other evidence of a circumstantial nature is insufficient. In his examination-in-chief Aggarwal stated that towards the end of November, 1950, he had seen the file O.G.L. II (Ext. P. B.) in the office of the respondent s firm. The respondent gave the file to him to type a copy of it and to finish the work to the exclusion of all other work. He began typing but could not finish the work that day and placed the typed portions of the file Ext. P. B. on the respondent s table in the office. Next day he told the respondent that he could not follow some portion of the file. The respondent read out from the file and comparison was made. He then made the necessary correction and additions in his own hand in the copies already typed. Thereafter, he handed over to the respondent the file Ext. P. B. and the types copies of it. If this evidence of Aggarwal can be believed an offence punishable under S. 5(4) of the Act would appear to have been proved against the respondent.

9. The cross-examination of Aggarwal, however, reveals him to be a thoroughly unreliable witness.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document