Legality of the order of conviction based on solitary testimony of a witness.

This is a revision petition by the ninth accused. Nine persons were charged for offences under Sections 489(A) , 489(B) , 489(C) and 489(D) of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court acquitted all the accused of the offences under Sections 489(A) and 489(B). It. acquitted accused 1 to 6 of offences under Sections 489(C) and 489(D). However, it convicted accused 7 and 9 of offences under those sections.

2. The seventh accused did not prefer any appeal. The ninth accused preferred an appeal and on appeal, the convictions and sentences were confirmed by judgment dated 18th December, 1981, by the Additional Sessions Judge of Tirunelveli. It is against the said judgment that the present revision has been preferred.

3. The main ground of revision is that the entire case of the prosecution is based on the recovery of some instruments and materials for forging and counterfeiting currency notes and on the confession leading to such a recovery and that such an evidence not properly corroborated was utterly insufficient for convicting a person for as important offences as those punishable under Sections 489(C) and 489(D). It was pointed out by the learned Counsel for the revision-petitioner that the mahazar witness cited by the prosecution turned hostile and has deposed that they signed only on a blank paper.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor would contend that as per Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, police officer can seize any property, that such seizure need not be attested by another witness and that even if such attestation was made and the attestor turned hostile later on, that would not affect the value of the deposition of the Investigating Officer. He, therefore, concluded that the conviction could legally rest on the sole deposition of the Investigating Officer making recovery upon the confession made by the accused to him.

5. In the present case the Investigating Officer P.W.50 deposed that he was taken to the garden of the house belonging to the third accused and that from that place M.Os.36 to 46 were unearthed and recovered. Those material objects are tin box, mirror, one foot scale, rubber cylinder, plastic tin containing black ink, 4 tins containing ink, two wooden planks in the shape of ‘L’, screws, one box containing gum, one old book and two damaged twenty-rupees fake notes. These articles were seized under the cover of mahazar, Ex.P-69, which is purported to have been attested by P.W.43 who turned hostile.

6. It is true that conviction can be based on the deposition of a single witness. But, in that case, the deposition should be detailed, cogent and convincing. In addition, Courts usually require corroboration between some written statement made by the witness immediately after the occurrence and his deposition before the Court. For instance, when a fact is spoken to only by the victim of an injury, Courts would require that his deposition was in consonance with his first information report. Similarly, in order to clothe the deposition of the Investigating Officer with such corroboration, rules and orders have been to indicate how the report of seizure of property should be effected. Important instructions in that connection are found in the Madras Police Standing Order Nos.591 and 704, which are re-produced below.

“591

(1) When any property is recovered by a Police Officer otherwise than on formal search of premises, a contemporaneous record of the facts relating to such recovery may be prepared by him in Form No.95 prescribed by order No.704 and may be attached by witnesses present at the time of such recovery. The record so made is admissible in evidence to corroborate the testimony of the Police Officer who prepared it or may be used to refresh his memory. The signatures of the attesting witnesses may be used in evidence only to corroborate the statement of the Police Officer that they were present at time of the recovery of the property and attested the record prepared by him. The statements which read as