JUDGMENT

Bhide, J. - Criminal Revisions Nos. 906, 1383 and 1384 of 1933 arise out of cases in which the facts are connected and the points for decision are of a similar character and it will be convenient to dispose of them together.

2. One Prem Kumar was undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for five years under Section 20, Arms Act, in the Borstal Jail. He was transferred to the Mayo Hospitial for treatment and on 11th April 1932, managed to escape from the hospital with the help of two persons named Ram Nath and Indar Nath (petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 1384 of 1933). He was taken to the printing press of Sotindar Nath (petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 1383 of 1933) and was kept there for three or four days. He then left Lahore and wandered from place to place for some time. He reached Amritsar about the middle of November and was kept concealed on the top floor of a house, with the help of Hari Ram (petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 1384 of 1933), who also used to supply him food, etc., till the police got a clue about Prem Kumar's whereabouts, and arrested him on 28th December 1932. On the basis of these facts, Hari Ram and Sotindar Nath have been senarately tried and convicted under Section 216, Penal Code. Hari Ram has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 18 months while Sotindar Nath has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and nine months and a fine of Rs. 100. Indar Nath has been found guilty under Section 224/109. Penal Code, in a separate trial and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years.

3. The principal witness in all these cases was Prem Kumar himself, and it is not disputed that his evidence does implicate the petitioners and support their convictions. It is however urged that the evidence of Prem Kumar is in the nature of the testimony of an accomplice and there is little or no evidence in corroboration of it to sustain the convictions of the petitioners.

4. In the case of Hari Ram, there is ample evidence in corroboration of the statement of Prem Kumar as regards Hari Ram supplying food, etc. and this was not challenged, but it was urged that there was no evidence in support of Prem Kumar's statement that Hari Ram was aware of the fact that he had escaped from lawful custody and that in the absence of corroboration as regards Hari Ram's knowledge of this fact, his conviction cannot be sustained. I do not think this argument is sound. It is true that it is a well established rule of practice to require corroboration of the statement of an accomolice connecting the accused person with the crime; but corroboration is not required in all details. As pointed out by a Division Bench in a recent case Sher Singh v. Emperor 1932 Lah. 621, even slight corroboration is sufficient for the purposes of this rule, if the Court is satisfied thereby about the genuneness of the accomplice's story, so far as it implicates the accused person. To insist on corroboration of the story in every detail, would practically mean requiring independent proof which will do away with the necessity of relying on the testimony of the accomplice at all. In the precent instance therefore there being sufficient corroborative evidence in ether respects, it was not necessary even according to the established rule of practice referred to above to require indeendent corroborative evidence of the statement of the approver as regards the knowledge of Hari Ram about Prem Kumar being an absconder. It may however be pointed cut that the circumstances in which Prem Kumar was secretly kept on the ton floor of the house and supplied with food. etc., the discovery of the key of Hari Ram's office with Prem Kumar, etc., are facts which indicate that Hari Ram must have been aware of the fact that Prem Kumar was art absconder and go to support Prem Kumar's statement in this respect.

5. The above remarks also apply to the case of Sotindar Nath. Sotindar Nath has admitted that he allowed Prem Kumar to stay in a room o