Holding

A conviction based on an accomplice's testimony is not illegal per se, but the court must seek corroboration unless the totality of evidence makes the accomplice's statement reliably provable; in this case, such corroboration existed, so the conviction was upheld.

Summary

The appellants, a Tehsildar and a Village Assistant, were convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC for demanding a bribe in a land‑patta case. The main issue was whether the testimony of the bribe‑giver, who was an accomplice, required corroboration before a conviction could be sustained. The Supreme Court examined the statutory provisions of the Evidence Act and the presumption against uncorroborated accomplice testimony, emphasizing that corroboration is a rule of prudence, not a strict legal requirement, unless the overall circumstances demand it. It held that the testimony of the accomplice (the bribe‑giver) was adequately supported by independent witnesses and circumstantial evidence, making the conviction safe. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, but the Court reduced the sentences to the period already served. The judgment also clarified the nature and extent of corroboration required in bribery and trap cases.

Issues considered

The necessity and extent of corroboration for an accomplice's testimony in bribery cases
Whether a conviction can stand on uncorroborated testimony of a bribe‑giver who is an accomplice
The applicability of Section 133 of the Evidence Act and Illustration (b) to Section 114 in the context of corruption offences
The appropriate sentencing after conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313
Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 114(b), s. 133
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120B, s. 161
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988s. 5(1)(d), s. 5(2)

Subjects

accomplice testimonycorroborationprevention of corruption actbriberyevidence lawIndian Evidence Acttrap casecircumstantial evidencesentence reduction

Judgment

A M.Q. SHAMSUDHIN
v.
STATE OF KERALA.

MARCH 21, 1995

B (M.M. PUNCHHI AND K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, JJ.].

Indian Evidence Act, 1872-Secs. ll<t (b) and 133-accomplice-Vn-
corroborated testimonr-Acceptance of-Guarded approach of Court-Held,
though his evidence could be relied upon, the facts and circumstances con- ._]
C viction not illegal-Hence, upheld.

Corroboration of Accomplice-Need for-In the nature of supporting
evidence-Not for ensuring any defect in the testimony of accomplice or to
validate it-Nature of corroborating evidence can be eve>i by way of cir-
cumstantial evidence.
D
Corroboration-Bribery case--Absolutely independent witness not pos-
sible-Necessity, extent and nature of dependence on facts and circumstan-
ces-Nec es sity of corroboration of complainant in all material
particulars-Cannot be laid down as a rnle of law.

E · Accomplice-Bribery case-types and grades of-First:The giver of
,. money for the purpose of trap to be called interested witness-Second.· One
who is always willing to get his work done by giving bribe and then complain-
ing-Particeps criminis-Statement of particeps criminis to be treated as the
statement of accomplice.
F Indian Penal Code, 186(}-Sectio'n 161 read with Section 120B-
Prevention of Comiption Act, 1947-Section 5 (2) r/w Section 5(1)(d)-
Prosecution,under-Testimony of bribe giver-No corroboration-Two inde-
. pendent witnesses of trap proceedings-Conviction by trial Court and High
Court-Held, evidence of bribe giver corroborated by circumstantial evidence
G and indepen{ient witnesses-Hence, conviction confirmed.
Words and Pharases: ''Accomplice'~ Corroboration" meaning of:

The Petitioners/A·l and 2 were charged under Section 5(2) read with
Section 5 (l)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and under section 161
H read with Section 120B IPC. The allegations against them were that Al,
900 .
SHAMSUDHIN v. STATE 901
Tehsildar and A2 Village Assistant had demanded bribe of Rs. 500 from A
PWl and PW2 for issuance of Patta of a piece of land in favour of PW-1.
PW-1 filed complaint before Deputy S.P., Vigilance, in the presence of PW3
and PW4. Trap was laid and the trap party alongwith mediators PWs 3
and 4 accompanied PWs 1and2 till the office of A·l. PWs 1and2 went
inside the office and A-1 who asked PW 1 to give the amount to A-2 who B
was standing nearby. PW-1 gave the amount to A-2 who kept it in his pant
pocket. After signal from PW-1 the trap party with PWs 3 and 4 reached
there and on asking, A-2 took out Rs. 500, the number of which tallied with
the number noted down by the raiding party. Phenolphthelin test of fingers
of A-2, his pant pocket and currency notes proved positive.
c
A-1 denied the charge and A-2 stated that he had obtained loan from
his Provident Fund Account and from that money a loan of Rs. 500 was
taken from him by A/1. He received the amount bonafide believing that it
was towards the loan. In support of statement of A-1, DW-1 was produced.

The Court declaring PW-1 hostile and on the basis of evidence of D
P.Wl and P.Ws.3 and 4, the independent witnesses, convicted both the
accused of the above charges.

The appeal of the accused to High Court were dismissed. In appeal
to this Court, A-1 contended that P.W.1, the bribe· giver was in the nature E
of accomplice and since P.W. 2 was declared hostile, there was no cor-
roboration to the alleged demand of bribe and also that bribe money was
not recovered from him, therefore, his plea of innocence is worth to be
admitted. A- 2 contended that since he received the money bonafide believ-
ing it to be towards the loan, he was innocent.
F
Dismissing the two appeals of A-1 and one Appeal A·2, this Court.

HELD : 1. Taking the overall circumstances into consideration in
the light of the evidence of PWs 3 and 4 along with the evidence of P.Ws.
1 and 2 both the courts have consistently held that the evidence of these G
witneses establish the guilt of the accused and there is no reason to come
to different conclusion. Though P.W. 2 has been treated hostile but there
is no reason to reject the evidence of P.W. 1 who is the main witness
regarding the demand of bribe and acceptance of the same by A·2 on behalf
of A·l as directed by A-1. The evidence of DW-1 by itself does not in any
manner demolish the evidence of PW·l. [920-H, 921-A, 909·B, 907-C] H
902 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 2 S.C.R.

A Pannalal Damodar Rathi v. State of Maharashtra, [1979] 4 SCC 526,
distinguished.

2. Section 133 of the Evidence Act lays down that an accomplice is a '
competent witness against an accused person. The conviction based on
such evidence is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncor-
B roborated testimony of an accomplice, though there is a rider in Illustra-
tion (b) to Section 114 of the Act which provides that the court may presume
that the accomplice is unworthy of credit unless he is corroborated in
material particulars. This presumption is in the nature of a precautionary
provision in corroborating the rule of prudence which is ingrained in the _]
C appreciation of accomplice's evidence. Therefore, the courts should be
guarded before accepting the accomplice's evidence and look for cor-
roborating evidence. The discretion of the court upon which the rule of
corroboration rests must be exercised in a sound and reasonable manner.
Normally the courts may not act on an uncorroborated testimony of an
accomplice but whether in a particular case it has to be accepted or not
D would depend on an overall consideration of the accomplices's evidence and
the facts and circumstances. If on being so satisfied the court considers
that the sole testimony of the accomplice is safe to be acted upon, the
conviction can be based thereon. Even if corroboration as a matter of
prudence is needed it is not for curing any defect in the testimony of the
E accomplice or to give validity to it but it is only in the nature of supporting
evidence making the other evidence more probable to enable the court to
satisfy itself to act upon it: [918-E-H, 919•A]

DPP v. Hester, (1972) 3 ALL ER 1056; DPP v. Kiboume, (1973) 1 ALL
ER 440; The King v. Baskerville, (1916) 2 K.B. 658 and Rameshwar v. State
F of Rajasthan, [1952] SCR 377, referred to.

3.1 There 'are grades and grades of accomplices. When there is
demand of bribe money by the public servant who is unwilling and to public
good approaches the authorities and lodges complaint, then in order that
the trap succeeds, he has to give the money. There could be another type
G · of bribe giver who is always willing to give money in order to get his work
done and having got the work done he may send a complaint. Hence he is
a ·}Jarticeps criminis in respect of the crime committed and thus is an
ac~omplice. [910-D-C]

H 3.2 In seeking corroboration for the evidence .of trap witnesses a
SHAMSUDHIN v. STATE 903
distinction has to be drawn where participation of an individual in a crime· A
"llii is not voluntary but is the result of pressure. If any of the witnesses are
accomplices who are particeps criminis in respect of the actual crime
charge, their evidence must be treated as the evidence of accomplices is
treated, if they are not accomplices in that sense, but are only partisan or
interested witnesses who are concerned in the success of the trap, their B
evidence must be tested in the same way as other interested evidence is
tested·which may vary from case to case and the corroboration in the case
of such interested witnesses can be in a general way and not as one
required in material particulars as in the case of an approver. In such a
case the element of mens rea to commit the crime is not apparent and
cannot strictly be classified as an accomplice and at any rate he cannot be c
treated as being on the same footing. Where a bribe has_ already been
demanded from a man and if without giving the bribe he goes to the police
or magistrate and brings them to witness the payment, it will be a
legitimate trap and in such cases at the most he can be treated as an
interested witness and whether corroboration is necessary or not will be D
within discretion of the Court depending on the facts and circumstances
of each case. [919-D·E·CJ

Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh and Anr. v. The State of Vindhya Pradesh,
[1954] SCR 1098; State of Bihar v. Basawan Singh, AIR (1958) SC 500; E
Major E.G. Barsey v. State of Bombay, AIR (196i) SC 1762; Bhanu Prasad
Hari Prasad Dave and Anr. v. State of Gujarat, AIR (1968) SC 1323; Dalpat
Singh and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, AIR (1969) SC 17; Maha Singh v. State
(DelhiAdmn), AIR (1976) SC 449 andHazarilalv. State (DelhiAdmn), AIR
(1980) SC 873, referred to.
F
r-~
3.3 Corroborating evidence can be even by way of circumstantial
evidence. As a rule of law it cannot be laid down, that the evidence of every
I" complaint in a bribery case should be corroborated in all material par·
ticulars and otherwise it cannot be acted upon. Whether corroboration is
necessary and if so to what extent and what should be its nature depends G
upon the facts and circumstances of each case; In a case of bribe a person
~ who pays the bribe and those who act as intermediaries are the only
persons who can ordinarily be expected to give evidence about the bribe
and it is not possible to get absolutely independent evidence about the
payment of bribe. [920·F, 919-H, 920-A] H
904 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 2 S.C.R.

A CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
553 of 1991 etc. etc. •

From the .Judgment and Order dated 23.11.90 of the Kerala High
Court in Crl. A. No. 245 of 1990.

B U.R. Lalit, G. Ramaswamy, Sr. Advs. M.K. Michael, E.M.S. Anam
and M.T. George Advs. with them for the appearing parties.

The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by
·~
K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J. These appeals arise out of a com-
C mon judgment of the High Court of Kerala in Criminal Appeal Nos. 196/90
and 245/90 filed by the appellants herein C.K. Karunakaran and M.O.
Shamsudhin respectively~ The two appellants figured as accused nos. 1 and
2 in C.C. No. 7/89 on the file of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special
judge, Thrissoor and they have been found guilty under Section 5(2) read
D with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under
Section 161 read with 120-B l.P.C. A-1 C.K. Karunakaran was sentenced
to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000
and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two
· months for the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act and to
E rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Sections 161 read
with 120-B l.P.C. A-1. M.O. shamsudhin wa sentenced to rigorous im-
prisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and in default to
undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month for the
offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act and to rigorous imprison-
ment for one year for the offence under Section 161 read with 120-B l.P.C.
F The substantive sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concur-
rently. The appeals filed by them were dismissed by the High Court. Since
it was a common judgment of the High Court in two appeals, A-1 has
chosen to file two appeals i.e. Criminal Appeal Nos. 451-52/91 and A-2 has
chosen to file only one appeal i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 553/91. Since
G common questions arise in these. appeals, they can be disposed of together
by a common judgment.

At the relevant time A-1 was the Tehsildar and A-2 was Village
Assistant. One Kunjan, deceased father of P.W.l, Rajan applied for patta
with regard to 55 cents of Sarkar Porambokku land in Kalur Village.
H Kunjan had remitted the necessary amount on 25.1.1974 pursuant to a
)

SHAMSUDHIN i•. STATE [K.J. REDDY .J.j 905

notice. Tpe balance amount of Rs. 42 was also remitted some time in 1975. A
After satisfactory compliance of the:: required formalities, patta was
directed to be issued in his favour by the Board of Revenue. Before the
patta could be issued Kunjan died. The matter was not pursued till 1987.
On 8.6.1987 P.W. 1 sent P.W. 2, his cousin, to enquire about the issuance
of the patta. P.W.2 met A-2 who told him that issuance of patta would
entail some expenses and P.W.2 conveyed the same to P.W. 1 who together B
with P. W. 2 met the accused at their office when a demand for bribe of
Rs. 500 was reportedly made. P.W. 1 thought it was improper to give the
bribe. He therefore filed a complaint Ex.P.4 before P.W.11, Dy. S.P.
Vigilance in the presence of P.W.3, Auditor, District Co-operative Bank
and P.W. 4, Inspector of Factories and Boilers. A case was registered, C
mahazars were prepared and the currency notes were subjected to Phenol-
phatelin test and the tainted money was handed over to P.W.1 to be given
in turn to the accused on demand. P.Ws. 7 and 8, Vigilance Constables
followed P.Ws. 1 and 2 to the office of A-1. P.W. 11 and others were also
on the move. According to P.W.1, he entered the office of A-1 and told
him that he:: had brought the amount asked for. A-1 asked him to give the D
amount to A-2 who was standing nearby. P.W.1 gave the amount to A-2
who put the same in his pant pocket. P.W. 2 also was there at that time.
P.W. 1 went out and gave signal. Then all of them including the mediators
P.Ws. 3 and 4 went to the office of A-1. P.W.11 disclosed his identity and
P.W.1 told him that A-2 had received the money as per the instructions of
A-1. On being questioned A-2 took out Rs. 500 from his pant pocket and E
the numbers of the currency notes tallied. Corner parts of the currency
notes and the pant worn by A-2 as well as his fingers were dipped in lime
water and the pheriolphtalein test proved positive. The necessary
panchnama incorporating all the facts was drawn up. The investigation of
the crime was partly conducted by P.W. 11 followed by P.W. 12 who F
succeeded P.W. 11 and after completion of the investigation, the charge-
r~·L sheet was laid.

When questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., A-1 admitted that on
9.6.87 P.Ws. 1 and 2 met him in respect of issuance of patta. He, however,
denied that he demanded Rs. 500 by way of bribe. He stated that when G
P.W. 1 met him A-2 was not there. He further stated that A-2 met him just
five minutes before the trap party entered his room and he also denied that
A-2 collected the money as directed by him.

I
A~2 stated that neither he conspired nor colluded with A-1 to obtain H'
J

906 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) 2 S.C.R.

A illegal gratification from P.W. 1 and that he was not present in the office
of A-1 on 9.6.1987. A-2, however, admitted that he had received a sum of
Rs. 500 from P.W.l in the office room of A-1 on 10.6.87 as per the
instructions of A- I but added that the amount was accepted without
~nowing that it was bribe money. He further explained that on 9.5.87 he
B obtained a loan of Rs. 1980 from his provident fund account which was
sanctioned by A-1 and from that amount Rs. 500 was taken by A-1 as a
loan stating that the same was required to meet his urgent necessities and
he promised to return the same within two days and the balance of Rs.
1480 alone was paid to him on 9.6.87. On 10.6.87 at about 4 P.M. while he
was in the office of A-1 seeking permission to leave the office early, P.W. ·-...........
C 1 alongwith another person came to the office of A-1 and P.W. 1 offered
some amount to A-1 who instructed A-2 to receive that amount from P.W.
1 telling him that the same was towards the amount of Rs. 500 which he
had taken as loan on the prelious day. Therefore according to A-2 he was
compelled to accept Rs. 500 from P.W. 1 as per the instructions of A-1
D bonafide believing that it was repayment and without knowing that it was
bribe money and therefore he is innocent. In support of his plea he
examined D.W.1, an L.D.C. working in his office just to show that on the
previous day a loan from provident fund was sanctioned to A-2.

Most of the basic facts are not in dispute. However, when examined
E in the court the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 did not unfold a consistent case
in all respects. P.W. 1 gave evidence in such a way making an effort to
exculpate A-2 while P.W. 2 gave evidence against A-2 in such a way
exculpating A-1. He was however treated hostile. The trial court as well as
the High Court after carefully scrutinising the evidence of P.W. 1 alongwith
F the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4, the independent witnesses held that the guilt
of both the accused has been established beyond all. reasonable doubt.
~-
Shri G. Ramaswamy, learned senior counsel appearing for A-1 sub-
mitted that P.W. 1, bribe-giver, is in the .nature of an accomplice and that
since P.W. 2 has been treated hostile, there is no corroboration with regard
G to the alleged demand of bribe by A-1 and since bribe money was
recovered only from A-2, A-l's plea that he is innocent should be accepted
and that A-2's statement trying to throw the blame on A-1 can not be used
against A-1 even assuming it to be a confession and that such a confession
by a co-accused who has tried to exculpate himself and inculpate A-1 is of
H no evidentiary value at all. Shri U.R. Lalit, learned senior counsel appear-
)

SHAMSUDHINv. STATE(K.J. REDDY,J.] 907

ing for A-2 submitted that explanation given by A-2 has to be accepted and A
that A-2 received the amount of Rs. 500 from P.W. 1 as per the instructions
of A-1 bonafide believing it to be towards the loan that A-1 has taken on
the previous day from the amount of provident fund of Rs. 1980 sanctioned
and that plea of A-2 is also supported by the evidence of D.W. 1.

Acceptance of Rs. 500 from P.W.l is not disputed by A-2 and that
B
the recovery of the same from A-2 is also not in dispute. A-2, however,
pleaded that he was not a party to the alleged criminal conspiracy with A-1
in demanding the bribe. The evidence of D.W. 1 only shows that a loan
from out of provident fund was sanctioned on the previous day. That by
itself does not in any manner demolish the evidence of P.W. 1. c
Now the question is whether the inconsistencies found in the
evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 do in any manner affect the prosecution case as
such? P.W.1 in his chief examination deposed that P.W. 2 who is his close
relation, went to the office of A-1 and found out that the patta was ready D
and the same would be given on spending some money. On 8.6.87 P.W. 2
told him that patta would be given oil giving bribe to A-1. On 9.6.87 both
of them went to the office of A-1 and discussed with him but A-1
demanded Rs. 500 and at that time A-2 was also present in the office. Since
P.W. 1 did not have the money with him on 9.6.87 he did not give the same.
Then A-1 directed him to give the money the next day at the waiting shed E
near Swapna Theatre, Thrissoor in the morning of 10.6.87. P.W.1 sent
P.W.2 to the waiting shed who told A-1 that he (P.W.1) would bring the
money after selling pepper in the market. P.W. 1 further deposed that after
realising the money he went to meet P.W. 2 who told him that A-1 has
asked P.W. 1 to go and meet him with the money at 4 P.M. At that stage p
r...J_ P.W. 1 decided not to give bribe and decided to inform the vigilance
department. Accordingly in the afternoon he and P.W. 2 went to Dy. S.P.
and gave the statement Ex.P.4. Then he gave the details of the trap
proceedings. P.W. 1 further deposed that as directed by Dy. S.P. he went
to the office of A-1 with the money and that at that time A-1 and A-2 were
present in the office. P.W. 1 told A-1 that he has brought the amount but G
A-1 asked him to give the amount to A-2 who was standing nearby and
accordingly he gave the money to A-2 and P.W. 2 was with him at that
time. Then he gave the necessary signal and thereafter the trap party came
in and recovered the money from A-2. In the cross-examination this witness
was confronted with his previous statement. It appears that he stated t? H
908 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) 2 S.C.R.

A the police that A-1 in the first instance demanded Rs. 1000. He was also
also confrQnted with the contents in his complaint Ex.P.4. We have ex-.
amined the contents of Ex.P.4. There no doubt P.W.l stated that A•2 came
to them and stated that A-1 was asking for bribe of Rs. 1000 for issuing
the patta but it is specifically mentioned that a little later he and P.W .. 2
were called to the room of A-1 and they went alongwith A-2. There A-2
B told that atleast Rs. 500 should be paid. In the further cross-examination
P.W.1 gave some answers stating that A-2 was not present in the room
when A-1 demanded the bribe of Rs. 500 and he also denied having given
statement earlier that A-2 came out and called them into the office of A-1 ' .._
but to another question P.W. 1, however, stated that A-2 was present when
C he went to give the money to A-1 on 10.6.87. Now we shall examine the
evidence of P.W.2 who is no other than the nephew of P.W.1. In the chief-
examination he deposed that on 19.6.87 at about 11.30 A.M. he and P.W. ·
1 went to the office of A-1 who after seeing the file told that since it is a
forest land it is not possible to get patta and when they went out of the
D office they saw A-2 who told them that if Rs. 1000 are given to him he will
get it done. But they told him that they are poor people. A-2, however, told
that atleast Rs. 500 should be given to Tehsildar. Then he gave further
details as to how P.W.1 gave the report to the Vigilance Department and
how the trap party proceeded etc. He proceeded to state that when he and
P.W. 1 entered the verandah of the office, A-2 came up and asked whether
E the amount has been brought to which they told that they will pay directly
to A-1 but A-2 told them that the money may be given to him and need
not be paid directly to A-1. Accordingly P.W. 1 gave that tainted notes to
A- 2. Thereupon P.W. 1 gave the signal. He gave further details about the
recovery of the money from A-2 and drawing of mahazars etc. Towards
F the end of the chief examination a specific question was put to him by the
prosecutor asking whether it was not A-1 who demanded the money to
which P.W.2 stated that it is only A-2 who demanded the money saying
that it has to be given to A-1. Because of this answer, the witness was )
treated hostile and in the cross-examination he denied having mentioned
certain facts in his earlier statement. ---
G
Learned counsel submitted that P.Ws. 1and2, the material witnesses
are inconsistent in their versions regarding the demand of bribe and
therefore it cannot be held that the prosecution has established that there
was such a demand by A-1. Therefore he cannot be held guilty and that
H consequently A-2 who has received Rs. 500 from P.W. 1 cannot also be
)
SHAMSUDHIN v. STATE [K.J. REDDY, J.) 909
held to have conspired with A- 1 in obtaining illegal gratification. A
No doubt P.W.2 has been treated hostile but we see no reason to
reject the evidence of P.W.1 who is the main witness regarding the demand
of bribe and the acceptance of the same by A-2 on behalf of A-1 as directed
by A-1. Learned counsel, however, submitted that there is no corroboration B
to the evidence of P.W.1 who is in the nature of an accomplice regarding
the demand.

Since this is an argument which is frequently put forward in all cases
of bribery, we would like to examine the scope, nature and extent of
corroboration that is necessary in such cases. The word "accomplice" is not C
defined in the Evidence Act. However, it is accepted that the word is used
in its ordinary sense which means and signifies a guilty partner or associate
in a crime. Illustration (b) to Section 114 in a way cautions the court to
bear in mind the presumption that an accomplice is not worthy of credit
unless he is corroborated in material particulars. Section 133 of the Act, D
however, declares that an accomplice shall be a competent witness against
an accused person and a conviction is not illegal merely because it
proceeds on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. The relation
between Section 133 which is a rule of law and Illustration (b) to Section
114 which is a rule of prudence has been the subject-of comment in a large
number of decisions. However, it has emerged that a conviction based on E
the uncorroborated testimony of ali accomplice~is not illegal though an
accomplice may be unworthy of credit for several reasons. Reading Section
133 and Illustration (b) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act together the
courts in India have held that while it is not illegal to act upon the
uncorroborated testimony of the accomplice the rule of prudence so' F
universally followed has to amount to rule of law that it is unsafe to act on
the evidence of an accomplice unless it is corroborated in material aspects
so as to implicate the accused. The reasons for requiring corroboration of
the testimony of an accomplice are that an accompli~e is likely to swear
falsely in order to shift the guilt from himself and that he is an immoral
person being a participator in the crime who may not have any regard to G
any sanction of the oath and in the case of an approver, on his own
admission, he is a criminal who gives evidence under a promise of pardon
and supports the prosecution with the hope of getting his own freedom.

Now confining ourselves to the case of bribery it is generally accepted H
910 SUPREME COURT REPORTS f1995) 2 S.C.R.
A that the person offering a bribe to a pub.lie officer is in the nature of an
accomplice in the offence of accepting illegal gratification but the nature
of corroboration required in such a case should not be subjected to the
same rigorous tests which are generally applied to a case of an approver.
Though bribe givers are generally treated to be in the nature of ac-
B complices but among them there are various types and gradation. In cases
under the Prevention of Corruption Act the complainant is the person who
gives the bribe in a technical and legal sense because in every trap case
wherever the complaint is filed there must be a person who has to give
money to the accused which in fact is the bribe money which is demanded
and without such a giving the trap cannot succeed. When there is such a
C demand by the public servant from a person who is unwilling and if to do ·
public good approaches the authorities and lodges complaint then in order
that the trap succeeds he has to give the money. There could be another
type of bribe giver who is always willing to give money in order to get his
work done and having got the work done he may send a complaint. Here
D he is a particeps criminis in respect of the crime committed and thus is an
accomplice. Thus there are grades and grades of accomplices and there-
fore a distinction could as well be drawn between cases where a person
offers a bribe to achieve his own purpose and where one is forced to offer
bribe under a threat of loss or harm that is to say under coercion. A person
who falls in this category and who becomes a party for laying a trap stands
E on a different footing because he is only a victim of threat or coercion to
which he was subjected to. Where such witnesses fall under the category
of "accomplices" by reason of their being bribe givers, in the first instance
the court has to consider the degree of complicity and then look for
corroboration if necessary as a rule of prudence. The extent and nature of
F corroboration that may be needed in a case may vary having regard to the
facts and circumstances.

The word "corroboration" means not mere evidence tending to con-
firm other evidence. In DPP v. Hester, [1972) 3 ALL ER 1056, Lord Morris
said:
G
"The purpose of corroboration is not to give validity or credence
to evidence which is deficient or suspect or incredible but only to
confirm and support that which as evidence is sufficient and
satisfactory and credible; and corroborative evidence will only fill
H its role if it itself is completely credible."
)
SHAMSUDHIN v. STATE [K.J. REDDY, J.] 911

ln DPP v. Ki/bowne, [19731 1 All ER 440 it was observed t~ A

"There is nothing technical in the idea of corroboration. When in
the ordinary affairs of life one is doubtful whether or not to believe
a particular statement one naturally looks to see whether it fits in
with other statements or circumstances relating to the particular
matter; the better it fits in, the more one is inclined to believe it. B
The doubted statement is corroborated to a greater or lesser extent
by the other statements or circumstances with which it fits in."

In The King v. Baskerville, [1916) 2 K.B. 658 which is a leading case
on this aspect, Lord Reading said: C
"There is no doubt that the uncorroborated evidence of an ac-
complice is admissible in law......But it has long been a rule of
practice at common law for the judge to warn the jury of the danger
of convicting a prisoner on the uncorroborated testimony of an
accomplice or accomplices, and, in the discretion of the judge, to D
advise them not to convict upon such evidence; but the judge
should point out to the jury that it is within their legal province to
convict upon such unconfirmed evidence ...... .

This rule of practice has become virtually equivalent to a rule E
of law, and since the Court of Criminal Appeal came into operation
this Court of Criminal Appeals came into operation this Court has
held that, in . the absence of such a warning by the judge, the
conviction must be quashed .... .If after the proper caution by the
judge the jury nevertheless convict the prisoner, this Court will not
quash the conviction merely upon the ground that the accomplice's F
testimony was uncorroborated."

In Rameshwar v. The State of Rajasthan, (1952) SCR 377, Bose J., after
referring to the rule laid down in Baskerville's case (supra) with regard to
the admissibility of the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, held G
thus:

"That in my opinion, is exactly the law in India so far as accomplices
are concerned and it is certainly not any higher in the case of sexual
offences. The only clarification necessary for purposes of this.
country is where this class of offence is sometimes tried by a judge H
912 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995} 2 S.C.R.

A without the aid of a jury. In these cases it is necessary that the
judge should give some indication in his judgment that he has had
this rule of caution in mind and should proceed to give reasons
for considering it unnecessary to require corroboration on the facts
of the particular case before him and show why he considers it
safe to convict without corroboration in that particular case."
B
Justice Bose in the same judgment further observed thus:

"In turn next to the nature and extent of the corroboration required
when it is not considered safe to dispense with it. Here, again, the
c rules are lucidly expounded by Lord Reading in Baskerville's case
(1916) 2 K.B. 658 at pages 664 to 669. It would be impossible,
indeed it would be dangerous to formulate the kind of evidence
which should, or would, be regarded as corroboration. Its nature
and extent must necessarily vary with circumstances of each case
and also according to the particular circumstances of the offence
charged. But to this extent the rules are clear.

First, it is not necessary that there should be independent
confirmation of every material circumstances in the sense that the
independent witness in the case, apart from the testimony of the
complainant or the accomplice, should in itself be sufficient to
E·
sustain conviction. As Lord Reading says-

"Indeed, if it were required that the accomplice should be
confirmed in every detail of the crime, his evidence would not be
essential to the case, it would be merely confirmatory of other and
F independent testimony."

All that is required is that there must be "some additional evidence
rendering it probable that the story of the accomplice (or com- \.
plainant) is true and that it is reasonably safe to act upon it."

G Secondly, the independent evidence must not only make it safe
to believe that the crime was committed but must in some way
reasonably connect or tend to connect the accused with it by
confirming in some material particular the testimony of the ac-
complice or complaintant that the accused committed the crime.
H This does not mean that the corroboration as to identity must
SHAMSUDHINv. STATE(K.J. REDDY,J.] 913
extend to all the circumstances necessary to identify the accused A
with the offence. Again, all that is necessary is that there should
be independent evidence which will make il reasonably safe to
believe the witness's story that the accused was the one, or among
those, who committed the offence. The reason for this part of the
rule is that-
B
"a man who has been guilty of a crime himself will always be
able to relate the facts of the case, and if the confirmation be only
on the truth of that history, without identifying the persons, that is
really no corroboration at all....It would not at all tend to show that
the party accused participated in it." C
Thirdly, the corroboration must come from independent sour-
ces and thus ordinarily the testimony of one accomplice would not
be sufficient to corroborate that of another. But of course the
circumstances may be such as to make it safe to dispense with the
necessity of corroboration and in those special circumstances a D
conviction so based would not be illegal. I say this because it was
contended that the mother in this case was not an independent
source.

Fourthly, the corroboration need not be dh·~ct evidence that E
the accused committed the crime. It is sufficient if it is merely
circumstantial evidence of his connection with the crime. Were it
otherwise, "many crimes which are usually committed between
accomplices in secret, such as incest, offences with females" (or
unnatural offences) "could never be brougtit to justice·."
F
(emphasis supplied);

We shall not refer to some of the judgment wherein the rule of
corroboration has been considered in respect of the bribery cases. In Rao
Shiv Bahadur .Singh and another v. The State of Vindhya Pradesh, (1954]
SCR 1098 there are observations to the effect that the evidence of the trap G
witnesses cannot be taken on its face value thereby indicating that their
evidence cannot be relied upon without independent corroboration. In The
State of Bihar v. Basawan Singh, AIR (1958) SC 500, a Bench of five-Judges
considered this "corroboration requirement" and after referring to the /
observations made in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh's case (supra) explained H
914 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 2 S.C.R.

A them in the following manner:

"If the witnesses are not accomplices_, what then is their position?
In Shiv Bahadur Singh's case (A) it was observed, with regard to
Nagindas and Pannalal, that they were partisan witnesses who were
out to entrap the appellant in that case, and it was further ob-
B served: "A perusal of the evidence .... leaves in the mind the
· impression that they were not witnesses whose evidence could be
taken as its face value." We have taken the observations quoted
above from a full report of the decision, as the authorised report
does not contain the discussion with regard to evidence. It is thus
clear that the decision did not lay down any universal or inflexible
c rule of rejection even with regard to the evidence of witnesses who
may be called partisan or interested witnesses. It is plain and
obvious that no such rule can be laid down; for the value of the
testimony of a witness depends on diverse factors, such as, the
character of the witness, to what extent and in what manner he is
D interested, how he has fared in cross-examination etc. There is no
doubt that the testll:nony of partisan or interested witnesses must
be scrutinised with care and there may be cases, as in Shiv Bahadur
Singh's case (A), where the Court will as a matter of prudence
look for corroboration. It is wrong, however, to deduce from that
decision any universal or inflexible rnle that the evidence of the
,E witnesses of the raiding party must be discarded, unless independent
con-oboration is available."

(emphasis supplied)

This Court in the above case concluded thus:
F
"The correct rule is this: if any of the witnesses are accomplices
who are particeps criminis in respect of the actual crime charged,
their evidence must be treated as the evidence of accomplices is
treated; if they are not accomplices but are partisan or interested
witnesses who are concerned in the success of the trap, their evidence
G
must be tested in the same way as other interested evidence is tested
by the application of diverse considerations which must vary from
case to case, and in a proper case, the Court may even look for
independent corroboration before convicting the accused person."

H (emphasis supplied)
)
SHAMSUDHIN v. STATE [K.J. REDDY, J.) 915.

It was further concluded thus: A

"As was observed by Lord Reading in 1916-2 KB 658 (C) even in
respect of the evidence of an accomplice, all that is required is
that there must be "some additional evidence rendering it probable
1
that the story of the accomplice is true and that it is reasonably B
safe to act upon it." In 1952 SCR 377 at p.385: AIR (1952) SC 54
at p.57 (B), to which we have referred in an earlier paragraph, the
nature and extent of corroboration required, when it is not con-
sidered safe to dispense with it, have been clearly explained and
it is merely necessary to reiterate that corrooration need not be
direct evidence that the accused committed the crime; it is suffi- C
cient even though it is merely circumstantial evidence of his con-
nection with the crime."

In a later case namely Major E.G. Barsey v. State of Bombay, AIR (1961)
SC 1762 it was held by this Court that though a trap witness is not an
approver he is certainly an interested witness in that he is interested to see D
that the trap laid by him is succeeded and he could at the most be equated
with the partisan witnesses which needs corroboration. Relying on the ratio
laid down in Basawan Singh's case, a Bench of three-Judges in
Bhanuprasad Hariprasad Dave and another v. The State of Gujarat, Air
(1968) SC 1323 held thus: E

"Now coming back to the contention that the appellants could not
have been convicted solely on the basis of the evidence of Ramanlal
and the police witnesses, we are of opinion that it is an untenable
contention. The utmost that can be said against Ramanla~ the Dy.
S.P., Erulker and Santramji is that they are partisan witnesses as they F
were interested in the success of the trap laid by them. It cannot be
said-and it was not said-that they were accomplices. Therefore, the
law does not require that their evidence should be corroborated
before being accepted as sufficient to found a conviction. This
position is placed beyond by the decision of this Court in The State G
of Bihar v. Basawan Singh, [1959] SCR 195 = AIR (1958) SC 500
wherein this Court laid down, overruling the decision in Rao Shiv
Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh, [1954] SCR 1098 =
AIR (1954) SC 322 that where the witnesses are not accomplices
but are merely partisan or interested witnesses, who are concerned
in the success of the trap, their evidence must be tested in th(( H
916 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 2 S.C.R.

A same way as any other interested evidence is tested and in a proper
case, the court may look for independent corroboration before
convicting the accused person. We are unable to agree that any
different rule was laid down in E.G. Barsey v. State of Bombay,
(1962) 2 SCR 195 = AIR (1961) SC 1762. It must be remembered
that the decision in Basawan Singh's case, (1959) SCR 195 = AIR
B (1958) SC 500 was given by a J3ench of Five Judges and that
decision was binding on the Bench that decided Barsay's case,
(1962) 2 SCR 195 = AIR (1961) SC 1762. Some of the observations
in Barsay's case, (1962) 2 SCR 195 =AIR 1961 SC 1762 no doubt
support the contention of the appellants. But those observations
must be confined to the peculiar facts of that case. It is now well
c settled by a series of decisions of this Court that while in the case of
evidence of an accomplice, no conviction .can be based on his
evidence unless it is co"oborated in material particulars but as
regards the evidence of a partisan witness it is open to a court to
convict an accuied person solely on the basis of that evidence, if it
D is satisfied that that evidence is reliable. But it may in appropriate
case look for corroboration. In the instant case, the trial court and
the High Court have fully accepted the evidence of Ramanlal, the
Dy. S.P. Erulker and Santramji. That being so, it was open to them
to convict the appellants solely on the basis of their evidence. That
apart, their evidence is substantially corroborated by the evidence
E of Dahyabhai, Sanghvi and Sendhalal. In the case of partisan
witnesses, the corroboration that may be looked for is corrobora-
tion in a general way and not material corroboration as in the case
of the evidence of accomplices."

(emphasis supplied)
F
In Dalpat Singh and Another v. State of Rajasthan, AIR (1969) SC 17 this
Court after referring to Basawan Singh's case (supra) observed thus:

"We are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel
G for the appellants that PWs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 17 and other prosecution
witnesses to whpse evidence we shall presently refer, should be
considered as accomplices and therefore their evidence is required
to be corroborated in material particulars before being accepted.
On the proved facts, even those who gave illegal gratification to
H the appellants cannot be considered as accomplices as the same
)

SHAMSUDHINv. STATE[K.J. REDDY,J.) 917
wa extorted from them. Though P.Ws. 1, · 2, 4 and 17 can be · A
considered as interested as regards their evidence relating to trap,
-1'- as a matter of law, it is not correct to say that their evidence cannot
be accepted without corroboration. See State of Bi/tar v. Basawan
Singh, (1959] SCR 195 = AIR (1958) SC 500."

(emphasis supplied) B

In Maha Singh v. State (Delhi .A,dministration), AIR (1976) SC 449 this
Court held thus:

"This also leads to the question whether all witnesses, who are C
called upon to assist detection ofI a bribery case by laying a trap,
should be considered unrealiable as accomplices or at any rate
partisan witnesses. There is no rule of law that even. if a witness is
otherwise reliable and independent, his association in a pre-ar-
ranged raid about which he had become acquainted makes him an
accomplice or a partisan witness. In absence of anything to warrant D
a contrary conclusion, conviction is not untenable merely because
it is based on the testimony of such a witness.

We are also not prepared to dub every witness of a raiding
party to be an accomplice per se or even as an interested witness E
in total absence of materials justifying such an inference. While
PW4 will be a highly partisan witness in this case in his own interest
to oblige the police, nothing was shown against PW 3. PW 7, the
Inspector, cannot be considered as an absolutely partisan witness
because he is a Police Officer who took immediate action on the
complaint. Nothing unusual is suggested against him. We have no F
hesitation in accepting the testimony of PWs 3 and 7 on their own.
They do corroborate the complainant."

In Hazari Lal v. The State (Delhi Admn.), AIR (1980)·SC 873, Chinnappa
Reddy, J. speaking for the Bench while repelling the contention that the G
evidence of trap witness namely the police officer should not be accepted
unless corroborated observed thus:

-·· "We, however, wish to say that the evidence of P.W. 8 is entirely
trustworthy and there is no need to seek any corroboration. We
are not prepared to accept the submission of Shri Frank Anthony H
918 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) 2 S.C.R.

A that he is the very Police Officer who laid the trap should be
sufficient for us .to insist upon corroboration. We do wish to say
that there is no rule of prudence which has crystallized into a rule
of law, nor indeed any rule of prudence~ which requires that the
evidence of su.ch officers should be treated on the same footing as
evidence of accomplices and there should be insistence on cor-
B roboration. In the facts and circumstances of a particular case a
Court may be disinclined to act upon the evidence of such an
officer without corroboration, but, equally, in the facts and cir-
cumstances of another case, the Court may unhesitatingly accept
the evidence of such an officer. I.t is all a matter of appreciation
c of evidence and on such matters there can be no hard and fast
rule, nor can there by any precendential guidance. We are forced
to say this because of late we have come across several judgments
of Courts of Session and sometimes even of High Courts where
reference is made to decisions of this Court on matters of apprecia-
D tion of evidence and decisions of pure question of facts."

From the above resume of various decisions the following principles
are deducible. Section 133 of the Evidence Act lays down that an ac-
complice is a competent witness against an accused person. The conviction ·~
I
based on such evidence is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the
E uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. However, there is a rider in
illustration (b) to Section 114-of the Act which provides that the court may
presume that the accomplice is unworthy of credit unless he is cor-
roborated in material particulars. This presumption is in the nature of a
precautionary provision incorporating the rule of prudence which is in-
f grained in the appreciation of accomplice's evidence. Therefore the courts
should be guarded before accepting the accomplice's evidence and look
for corroborating evidence. The discretion of the court upon which the rule
of corroboration rests must be exercised in a sound and reasonable man-
ner. Normally the courts may not act on an uncorroborated testimony of
G an accomplice but whether in a particular case it has to be accepted
without corroboration or not would depend on an overall consideration of
the accomplice's evidence and the facts and circumstances. However, if on
being so satisfied the court considers that the sole testimony of the ac-
complice is safe to be acted upon, the conviction can be based thereon.
H Even if corroboration as a matter of prudence is needed it is not for curing
..)

SHAMSUDHIN v. STATE [KJ. REDDY, J.) 919
any defect in the testimony of the accomplice or to give validity to it but it A
is only in the nature of supporting evidence making the other evidence
more probable to enable Lhe court to satisfy itself to act upon it.

Now coming to the witnesses in trap cases, as held in Basawa11
Singh's case (supra) by a Bench of five Judges, if any of the witnesses are
accomplices who are particeps criminis in respect of the actual crime
B
charge, their evidence must be treated as the evidence of accomplices is
treated; if they are not accomplices in that sense but are only partisan or
interested witnesses who are concerned in the success of the trap, their
evidence must be tested in the same way as other interested evidence is
tested which may vary from case to case and the corroboration in the case C
of such interested witnesses can be in a general way and not as one
required in material particulars as in the case of an approver. Therefore
in seeking corroboration of the evidence of the witnesses a distinction has
to be drawn where participation of an individual in a crime is not voluntary
but is the result of pressure. In such a case the element of mens rea to D
commit the crime is not apparent and cannot strictly be classified as an
accomplice and at any rate he cannot be treated as being on the same
footing. Where a bribe has already been demanded from a man and if
without giving the bribe he goes to the police or magistrate and brings them
to witness the payment it will be a legitimate trap and in such cases at the
most he can be treated as an interested witness and whether corroboration E
is necessary or not will be within the discretion of the court depending
upon the facts and circumstances of each case. However as a rule of
prudence, the court has to scrutnise the evidence of such interested wit-
nesses carefully.
F
Now coming to the nature of corroborating evidence that is required,
it is well-settled that the corroborating evidence can be even by way of
circumstantial evidence. No general rule can be laid down with respect to
quantum of evidence corroborating the testimony of a trap witness which
again would depend upon its own facts and circumstances like the nature
of the crime, the character of trap witness etc. and other general require- G
ments necessary to sustain the conviction in that case. The court should
weigh the evidence and then see whether corroboration is necessary.
Therefore as a rule of law it cannot be laid down that the evidence of every
complainant in a bribery case should be corroborated in all material
particulars and otherwise it cannot be acted upon. Whether corroboration H
920 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 2 S.C.R.

A is necessary and if so to what extent and what should be its nature depends
upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In a case of bribe, the
person who pays the bribe and those who act as intermediaries are the only
persons who can ordinarily be expected to ·give evidence about the bribe
and it. is not possible to get absolutely independent evidence about the
payment of bribe. However, it is cautioned that the evidence of a bribe-
B giver has to be scrutinised very carefully and it is for the court to consider
and appreciate the evidence in a proper manner and decide the question
whether a conviction can be based upon or not in those given circumstan-
ces.

C Learned counsel appearing for A-1, however, placed reliance on the
judgment of this Court in Pannalal Damodar Rathi v. State of Maharashtra,
(1979) 4 sec 526 wherein it was observed that the evidence of the com-
plainant in such cases should be corroborated in material particulars and
while acquitting the appellant it was held that on facts there was no
D corroboration to the testimony of the complainant regarding the demand
of money by the appellant. This Court after extracting the evidence of a
panch witness who was also present at the time of giving the bribe who
however did not say anything regarding the demand by the accused, held
that the version of the complainant regarding the demand was not cor-
roborated and his evidence can not be relied upon. The facts in Pannalal
E Damodar Rathi's case (supra) are distinguishable namely that the panch
witness who was also present with the complainant who is alleged to have
given the money, did not say a word about the alleged demand and in that
view of the matter it was held that there was no corroboration. But it must
be borne in mind that corroboration can be by way of circumstantial
F evidence also. In the instant case, P.W. 1 hal) no axe to grind against A-1.
It is not in dispute that he had to get a patta issued by A-1 and he
categorically stated that A-1 made the demand. A-2 was his assistant and
the tainted money was recovered from A-2 while he was just going out of
the office of A-1. Unless A-1 has demanded the money and has also
directed him to hand over the same to A-2, there was no reason at all as
G to why P.W. 1 should hand over the money to A-2. P.W. 1 has consistently
stated that A-1 demanded the bribe and that A-2 received the amount as
stated by him. Therefore it cannot be said that there is no corroboration
regarding· the demand. This is a case where each of the accused tried to
throw the blame on the other but taking the overall .circumstances into
H consiJeration in the light of the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4 alongwith.the
)
'

SHAMSUDHINv. STATE(K.J. REDDY,J.) 921
evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 both the courts below have consistently held that A
the evidence of these witnesses establish the guilt of the accused and we
see no reason to come to a different conclusion. In this view of the matter
it is not necessary to go into the question whether the statement made by
A-2 which is in the /11ature of a confession by a co-accused can be used
against A-1.
B
Coming to the sentence we find that there are good grounds to
reduce the same. The offence itself is said to have been committed in the
year 1987 and both the appellants have lost their jobs and have undergone
-r the agony of facing the criminal proceedings all these years. We find that
they have been in jail for quite some time and we think it is not a fit case C
where they should be sent back to jail. Therefore while confirming their
convictions we reduce the sentence of imprisonment under each count,
which are directed to run concurrently, to the period already undergone.
The sentences of fi,ne with default clause are, however, confumed. Subject
to this modification of the sentence of imprisonment all these appeals arc
dismissed. D
K.T. Appeals dismissed.