Supreme Court of India
SHRISHAIL NAGESHI PAREversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Citation
- 1985 INSC 67
- Decided
- 25 March 1985
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- O CHINNAPPA REDDY
Holding
A retracted confession may support the conviction of the confessor with independent corroboration but cannot alone convict a co‑accused, while a truthful eye‑witness statement can, by itself, justify a conviction.
Summary
The first accused in State of Maharashtra v. Shrishail Nageshi Pare was convicted of murder under Section 302 of the IPC by the Sessions Judge, a decision affirmed by the High Court. He filed Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 372 of 1985, challenging the High Court's view that an eye‑witness account was merely one leg of a tripod of evidence and that a retracted confession could not form the basis of any conviction. The Supreme Court held that a truthful eye‑witness testimony can, by itself, be sufficient to sustain a conviction and need not depend on corroboration from other evidence. It further clarified that a retracted confession may be the basis of conviction of the confessor if it receives general corroboration, but it cannot be the sole basis for convicting a co‑accused, though it may be considered against them. The Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, correcting the High Court's misapplication of the ‘tripod’ metaphor and reaffirming established principles of evidence law.
Issues considered
- Whether a retracted confession can form the basis of conviction of a co‑accused.
- Whether eye‑witness testimony alone is sufficient to warrant a conviction.
- Whether the High Court's metaphor of a ‘tripod’ of evidence is legally correct.
Legislation cited
Subjects
retracted confessioneye‑witness testimonyco‑accusedevidence lawSection 302 IPCSection 27 CrPCSpecial Leave Petitionconviction
Judgment
- I 461
A
... SHRISHAIL NAGESHI PARE
•
B·
:STA_TE OF MAHARASHTRA:
March 25, 1985
- .. ,_;
A
• [O. CmNNAP~A REDDY AND V. BALAWHNA ERADr,JJ.]
- '.
Cri,;,tnal Procedure cOde J97J,' Section. JM
Retracted confession oi accll$ed-When ;cV,fof.m basis of /111 con,lctiOn
-Whether can form basis of corrvlctlon of co·Accused. D.
.... ·
:·
_Criminal Trial : ·
£vf'1enct of 1ru1h{uf .eµ »:llne1s-;Whether sufficient to_ warrant a cotrv/c..
.' ' E
The petitio~er was ~onvlctcd by the Sessions _Judge· under Section 302.
Jf~1 ~nd th~ 'QnViC\iOR W'IS confirmea by tho ffish Court,
' Plsmissin~ Ille Spceial Leave Petition, ' F
.. . -
..
' '
'
· HELP : ·I, The .e~idcnce of an eye witness; It accep'tcd !1 -,ufiict.;,1'
10 warrant conviction though in appropriate cases the Court may ai a nicas11r0 ·
of caution seek •=
confirming citcumstances from other sources. Bui ordl·:
llUily, the evidence of a truthful eye wi!JlCss is sufficient without. anything
moro to warrant a· eouviction and cannot tor instance be made to depend_ tor
Its aoceptance on the .truthfiilncss of other Items of evidence lucb u recovery, G
• _of ~upous etc. at the instance or the accused by the police: [463A·BJ'
..
· · . 2. A retracted confession by an accused may form the basis of a
coDviction of that accused if it tteeives . some general corroboration from other "l
independent sources: . It cannot however, be the basis tor. convicting a co•.
accused _though it may be taken into consideration •&ainst co-&CCUJCd • · · fl
ii 13 ~nlirclr wronJ 19 \hiiik lh~I R ~9!lfc1sio11 fi!!l lc~~ P9l"li~~.· (463D·llj
---------- --~
462> SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1985) 3 S.C.R.
Jn the instant case, the High Court was wrong in treating the evidence
of the eye witness as 'one of three legs of a tripod' which must collapse if any -
of the other Legs collaPSCs.'· ·:11 was; also· wrong in' holding that a confession
cannot be the foundation of a conviction but can only constitute'a fourth leg
to a tripod\ and that "the confession alone and by itself cannot prove the '
guilt of an accused."" · [463C-D]
B~
CRIMINAL APPELLATE .JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition
(Criminal) No. 372 of 1985.
•
From. the Judgment and Order dated 18/19.9.1984 of the
CJ Bombay[ ¥fg~;~o~r} }~ Cri,'"?i.~~l A_PP'?~~ N!''. ,~;,3 .~f,1,98~ , , , ,! •
S.B. Bhasme, A.B. Bhasme and M.A. Firoz for the Petitioner.
' \ ._,,·.,,,.,, ... _~•-'. ;, 'J ·, ......... ·;, ~.,- .. ··.:;
· ·The Order of the Court was delivered by
::~-\\,;;·:·_~~.·- ~-t·'.1;, ;- .. =.' _.: ·-·; .. -~'.---. ,, : \.··. ·:",: ', 1 •"·(•,'.'••
I . , .. - • ;: .. . . ' -,. .\ ~
D1
Cm~APPA REDDY, J. This Special Leave Petition by the first
accused in Session Case No. 134 of 1930 before the Sessions Judge,
Sholapur whose conviction by the Sessions Judge under section 302
has been confirmed by the High Court, has to be dismissed-as it
' .... · - J•> '' ' ' ' "' -- • . . ! " • ,' . • •," '• ·
O • •' : ' • ' ~
0 •" •" • ' •. 0
restS ·enttrely ·on ·appreciation of evidence. While d1Sm1Ssmg the·.
Special Leave Petition we are however, constraint to make a few'
remarks abou~ some . of the observations of the High Court. In
paragraph 18 of·' the· judgment' of; the High Court it has been said
"the case of the prosecution stands< on·. the. pedestal "of 'ti:ipc)ci' a
having the eye witness account of Shrimant and Nirmala as one leg:
the discovery of axes. spear and a pair of trousers as th.e second leg
and the animosity generated by high-handed behaviour of Malkari
r~gar<Ji11g piy:rsion, of rain. '\}'ate~ ,.:is •the !hird_leg. ~The ~onfession •
ll!ad~,by a,ecus,d,N,o, j. Nogeshi ::which was subsequently retracted·
forms the! additional' fourth' leg - of the ·tripod but it is' well settled•
ttiat'the·confessional statement can n~ver be an eviderice···uponwbii::h'.
to found-~ a'· -conviction. ' It.,·.can:· at· best rfurnish an additioriat·re~'1·
., , . ~-- · •••• -···~ ~ . ,·,. . . • . . . / •. ' . . • . . • • . . · •... , . .
. e11ro,rfewenfwhen.. t~e. !!thee... evi~en~e., 15 cl,inchmg ,enough. t~ pr~·
,.~·.···
•
nounce a verdict of guilt.· The confessional statement alone and by
itself would lead us nowhere ; if one of the legs of the tripod on
. which' the prosecution bases its case. 'gives way,' the whole case like
Humpty Dumpty'would come ~umbling· down ·arid ·the 'additional
folirt!{feg.:....:t:hat
.,. : • I - _.,, .
is,
•
the
' .
confession, '
will
,
not;
.. ,
like.all
' , ,
the King's -
horses
'
~pyhe Kirig's men wo'!ld put Humpty Dumpty,to~ether," ,. , .. ,
S. N. PARii •. MAHARASHTRA (dinnappa Reddy, f.) 4th
The metaphor used by the judges is entirely misapplied and
misleading. The evidence:of the eye_ witness;·if acc.epted, is sufficient
to warrant conviction though in appropriate cases the Court may as
• a measure of caution seek some confirming circumstances from other
sources. But ordinarily, the evidence of a truthful eye witness is
sufficient without anything more, to warrant a conviCtion and can-
not, for instance, be made to• "depend for its acceptance on the B
truthfulness of other items of evidence such as recovery of weapons
etc. at the instance of the accused by the police. The Judges of the
High Court were wrong in · tre~ting• the evidence of eye witness as
'one of three legs of a tripod which must collapse if any qf the other
legs collapses. Again the High Court iS wrong in thinking'that a con-
fession cannot be the foundation of a conviction but can only con- c
stitute 'a fourth leg to a tripod'. This· ·statement has been repeated
again in paragraph 30, where the High· Court has observed "the
confession alone and by itself cannot' pr9ve' the guilt of an accused:"
J We are not a iittle surprised that' such a· statement should 'have. been
made by the High Court. We wish to make it clear ai:ufthis is· oniy D,,i
to repeat what is so well established that a retracted confession by '~· '•
a
an accused may form the basis o( conviction of that aceuse'd if it
receives some general corroboration from 'oiher independent s6urc~s.
It cannot however, be the basis for convicting co-accuseo though it
niay be taken ·into · consideration against . co-accused· also; It is
e~tirely wrong to think that a confession can lead nowhere. We"~·~;, E
sorry to fin~ such careless statements · in the judgment of a High
Court.
Special leave petition is dismissed.
. " ~-.~
• - '
'""· i
_..,.,~· ,
N.V.K. Petition dismiSsed
,.
· -~: "'At
. '
'"
·.,,.
,,
.. . I~
...._,
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "retracted confession"Sign in to search