A former statement made by a witness relating to the same fact at or about the time when the fact took place, or before any authority legally competent to investigate the fact, is admissible under S. 157 of the Indian Evidence Act to corroborate the testimony of the witness in court.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - MURDER - EVIDENCE - CORROBORATION - STATEMENT OF WITNESS TO ANOTHER PERSON IMMEDIATELY AFTER INCIDENT - ADMISSIBILITY UNDER S. 157 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT - TESTIMONY OF SINGLE WITNESS - RELIABILITY - CIRCUMSTANCES TO BE CONSIDERED.
Fact of the Case:

Bhimsen was murdered in a mandi in Rajasthan. The prosecution alleged that the appellants and two others, who were acquitted by the Sessions Judge, were responsible for the murder. The main evidence against the appellants was the testimony of Jawanaram, the father of the deceased, who was present at the time of the incident. The Sessions Judge relied on Jawanaram's statement and convicted the appellants, but the High Court also admitted the statement of Roopram, a shopkeeper who was present at the time of the incident, as corroboration of Jawanaram's testimony. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the statement of Roopram was inadmissible and that the testimony of Jawanaram was insufficient to convict them.
Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court held that the statement of Roopram was admissible under S. 157 of the Indian Evidence Act as corroboration of Jawanaram's testimony. The Court held that S. 157 does not require that the witness to be corroborated must also say in his testimony that he had made the former statement. The Court also held that the testimony of Jawanaram was reliable and sufficient to convict the appellants, even though it was not corroborated by any other witness.
Issues: 1. Whether the statement of Roopram was admissible under S. 157 of the Indian Evidence Act as corroboration of Jawanaram's testimony. 2. Whether the testimony of Jawanaram was sufficient to convict the appellants.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act allows for the admission of a former statement made by a witness relating to the same fact at or about the time when the fact took place, or before any authority legally competent to investigate the fact, in order to corroborate the testimony of the witness in court. 2. The requirement of S. 157 is that the witness to be corroborated must have made a former statement relating to the same fact at or about the time when the fact took place. It is not necessary that the witness to be corroborated must also say in his testimony that he had made the former statement. 3. The testimony of a single witness may be sufficient to convict an accused person, even if it is not corroborated by any other witness. However, the court must consider the circumstances of each case to determine whether corroboration is necessary.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed and the convictions of the appellants were upheld.

Judgment

WANCHOO, J. : This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court. It arises out of an incident in which Bhimsen was murdered on May 8, 1959 at Mandi Pili Bangan shortly before 3 p.m. The prosecution story briefly was that there was bad blood between Ramratan appellant and the members of the family of Bhimsen on account of panchayat elections in which they had supported rival candidates. Another cause or enmity was that some time before the occurrence, Ramratan appellant was prosecuted under S. 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Bhimsen was cited as a prosecution witness in that case and Ramratan did not like that.

2. Bhimsen and his father brought some gram for sale on the night between May 7/8, 1959, to Pili Bangan. Bhimsen returned to the village to bring more gram and came back at about 10/11 a.m. on the 8th on his tractor-trolly along with his brother Ram Partap. The gram was to be sold through Roopram and was stacked in front of his shop in the mandi. Ram Partap was apparently not interested in the sale and had wandered away leaving his father Jawanaram and his brother Bhimsen at the shop. Shortly before 8 p.m. while the gram was being weighed by Lekhram weighman, the three appellants and two others (namely, Moman and Ramsingh) came up there armed with guns. Ramratan shouted that the enemy should not be allowed to escape as Bhimsen was trying to enter the shop of Roopram to save himself on seeing these persons. Before, however, Bhimsen could enter the shop of Roopram, Ramratan came in-between and fired at him from a distance of about 5 feet. Bhimsen got injured and fell down and died soon after. Jawanaram raised his hands and asked the assailants not to kill Bhimsen but Hansraj appellant fired at him causing a wound on his left hand, which resulted in a compound fracture. Maniram also fired at Jawanaram but he dropped on the ground and pellets hit Lekhram weighman who was standing behind Jawanaram. Thereafter all the assailants ran away. Roopram had shut up his shop when the incident took place and he only came out when everything was over. Jawanaram asked him to send a telegram to police station Suratgarh and told him the names of the five assailants. Thereafter Jawanaram Started for the police outpost in Pili Bangan to make a report; but Ramsingh constable met him on the way at a short distance from the shop of Roopram. Thereupon Jawanaram made a report (Ex. P-1) to Ramsingh then and there. While this report was being recorded, Ram Partap also turned up. After the report had been recorded, Jawanaram was sent to the hospital where his injuries were examined at 3-30 p.m. Ramsingh constable went to the spot after recording the report and found the dead body of Bhimsen lying in front of Roopram s shop. It appears that head-constable Govind Singh had gone outside and returned at 5 p.m. and started investigation thereafter. The Sub-inspector arrived on the scene at about 6 p.m. and took over the investigation and completed it. Thereafter the three appellants and two others who have been acquitted by the Sessions Judge were prosecuted for this murder. The case of the appellants was that they had not committed this offence and that they had been implicated on account of enmity. They examined no evidence in defence.

3. The main prosecution evidence consisted of the statements of Jawanaram, his son Ram Partap, Roopram and Lekhram as to what happened at the spot. Jawanaram related the whole story as given above. Ram Partap said that he had come near the spot on seeing the assailants going that way and hid himself at some distance and saw the incident from there. Roopram s statement was that he shut up his shop as soon as he heard some noise outside and did not see the assailants. When he came out, however, he was told by Jawanaram the names of the five assailants and saw Bhimsen lying dead. He had also heard three reports of gunshots from inside his shop. He saw Jawanaram and Lekhram were also the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1951 Supreme(SC) 49

A former statement made by a witness relating to the same fact at or about the time when the fact took place, or before any authority legally competent to investigate the fact, is admissible under S. 157 of the Indian Evidence Act to corroborate the testimony of the witness in court.

Cases Referred (2)