ON Criminal Appeals No 28 to 31 of 1955
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 11th February 1953 of the Hyderabad High Court in Criminal Appeals Nos 1260 to 1263 of 19511952 arising out of the judgment and order dated the 6th November 1951 of the Court of the Sessions Judge at Warangal in Original Criminal Case No 127 of 1950
H J Umrigar for appellant No 1
K R Choudhry for appellants Nos 2 to 4
Porus A Mehta and P G Gokhale for the respondent
March 14
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRASEKHEARA AIYAR J
The four appellants and two others named Sheshaya and Pitchi Reddy who are all communists were charged with the murder of one Venkatakrishna Shastry who was a Congress worker or leader
The appellants were convicted of the offence but the other two were acquitted by the Sessions Judge Warangal Hyderabad State on the astounding ground that no overt acts were proved against them
The appellants preferred appeals to the High Court at Hyderabad and there was the usual reference for confirmation of the death sentences imposed on them
The appeals were heard by a Bench consisting of Deshpande J and Dr Mir Siadat Ali Khan J and 249 they disagreed with each other
Deshpande J held that the evidence did not establish the guilt of the appellants and be acquitted them
On the other band Dr Mir Siadat Ali Khan came to the conclusion that the prosecution had established its case beyond reasonable doubt
He confirmed the convictions but reduced the sentences to imprisonment for life
Owing to this difference of opinion the matter was referred to a third Judge Manohar Pershad J and be agreed with the finding of guilty given by his learned bro ther Dr Mir Siadat Ali Khan
We granted special leave to the appellants to come before this court
The facts of the occurrence as alleged by the prosecution are these
On the evening of 19 1 1949 the deceased Venkatakrishna Shastry of the village of Maturpeta and five other persons who were Congress workers like him were returning to the village from a tank
One of the communist leaders called Nagabhushan Rao had been arrested a month or two previously and the communist party believed that Venkatakrishna Shastry was responsible for the arrest
So a large group of communists about 25 or 30 in number including the accused armed with guns and swords paid a visit to Maturpeta to wreak vengeance against the Congress group led by Venkatakrishna Shastry
They ran into the Congress group as they were getting back to the village after the evening stroll
PW 14 a dhobi boy named Gopai was one of the camp followers of this communist group
Venkatakrishna Shastry and his co workers were tied up with their own clothes and were led to the village chavadi over which a Congress flag was flying
A rope was brought from the house of P W 17 and the members of the Congress group were tied with this rope and led some distance away from the village to a red gram field and all of them were beaten by their enemies except Shastry the rest were driven away from the place
Shastry was tied with the rope and taken in the eastern direction by Mangapaty the dalam or troup leader and the accused
P W 14 was following the group carrying a bundle of their clothes on his head
After a short halt at the village of 250 Suknevedu where some food was taken the party went towards a mango tope near a brook four or five miles away leading Venkatakrishna Shastry as the captive
The deceased Gopai PW 14 and some of the accused remained on the bank of the brooklet
The others went a little beyond and one of them came back with orders that Venkatakrishna Shastry should be fetched
Venkatakrishna Shastry was taken along and when the moon was at the meridian the rope with which he was led was tied round the neck of the deceased into a noose
Two of the accused pulled one end of the rope and two others at the other end in opposite directions
Venkatakrishna Shastry was thus strangled to death
A pit was dug and the body of Venkatakrishna Shastry was buried in the river bed
PW 14 saw all this from a distance of twenty yards in clear moonlight
Two or three days later after some wanderings in the jungle and mountain dens PW 14 left the company of his masters who were implored by the boy s father PW 7 to permit him to take the boy away
Next morning a report was sent by PW 2 the police patel about the abduction of Venkatakrishna Shastry and investigation was begun
On 8 2 1949 that is about twenty days after the occurrence some bones of a human body were discovered in the riverbed as the result of crows and vultures hovering round the place
The police Patwari PW 10 sent a report about this discovery
The police arrived on the scene and exhumed the body which was identified as that of Venkatakrishna Shastry
This was on 9 2 1949
It was sent for postmortem examination
The condition in which the body was at the time of exhumation is stated in a panchnama that was then prepared
The results of the postmortem examination are spoken to by the doctor PW 7
Being the only witness for the commission of the crime the dhobi boy PW 14 was subjected to severe criticism by Mr Umrigar who held the dock brief for the appellants
He described him as an accomplice and as an unmitigated liar and he asked us not even to look at his evidence
PW 14 does not satisfy the 251 definition of an accomplice he falls somewhat short of the requirements which would confer on him this status
According to the evidence he left his parents  roof after a quarrel with his father and while wandering in the jungles he was picked up by the communists only 3 days before and taken as their servant on promise to give him food
His main duty appears to have been to go with the group carrying their bundles of clothes on his head
It was in this capacity that he was not only able to see the abduction of the deceased but also to witness the actual murder
He took no part whatever in the commission of the offence or in any active or passive preparations for the same
He was not a particeps crimines
After securing his release from his temporary masters he went back with his father to the village
It is true he did not divulge the secret of the murder to any one else except to his own father
But who would in view of the atrocities and terrorism that prevailed in that region during the relevant time It required a very courageous man to have proclaimed the truth needless of consequences to himself And we cannot credit the dhobi boy with so much of fearlessness
The learned counsel urged that if a man sees the perpetration of a crime and does not give information of it to anyone else he might well be regarded in law as an accomplice and that he could be put in the dock with the actual criminals
There is however no warrant for such an extreme proposition
On the other hand the following short passage from Russell on Crime 10th Edition page 1846 will show its untenability But a person may be present and if not aiding and abetting be neither principal nor accessory as if A happens to be present at a murder and takes no part in it nor endeavours to prevent it or to apprehend the murderer this course of conduct will not of itself render him either principal or accessory
Indeed there can be no doubt that the evidence of a man like PW 14 should be scanned with much caution and we must be fully satisfied that he is a witness of truth especially when no other person 252 was present at the time to see the murder
Though he was not an accomplice we would still want corroboration on material particulars in this particular case as he is the only witness to the crime and as it would be unsafe to hang four people on his sole testimony unless we feel convinced that he is speaking the truth
Such corroboration need not however be on the question of the actual commission of the offence if this was the requirement then we would have independent testimony on which to act and there would be no need to rely on the evidence of one whose position may in this particular case be said to be somewhat analogous to that of an accomplice though not exactly the same
What the law requires is that there should be such corroboration of the material part of the story connecting the accused with the crime as will satisfy reasonable minds that the man can be regarded as a truthful witness
In the leading case of Rex vs Baskerville1 it was pointed by Lord Reading CJ that the corroboration need not be direct evidence that the accused committed the crime it is sufficient if it is merely circumstantial evidence of his connection with the crime
The nature of the corroboration will depend on and vary according to the particular circumstances of each case
What is required is some additional evidence rendering it probable that the story of the accomplice is true and that it is reasonably safe to act upon it
Judged by this test we can say that the evidence given by PW 14 has been amply corroborated
It was not disputed for the appellants that there is abundant evidence consisting of the testimony of several witnesses in support of the truth of the narrative given by PW 14 regarding the abduction of the deceased
This evidence was given not by mere onlookers but by men like PWs 3 4 5 6 and 9 who were with the deceased when the communist group came upon them and who were themselves badly beaten up by the gang before being released from impending death at the merciful intervention of 1 1916 2 KBD 658 253 some one of them
They say that at the time of the release the accused retained the deceased with them and took him away in the direction of Mulgupad
From this stage P W 14 takes us to the river bank where the deceased and he were allowed to sit
The accused went into the river bed and later on orders were issued by the appellant No 1 the deceased was led by a rope from the bank by Muthyalu 4th appellant
The rope was tied round the neck of the deceased into a noose and pulled in opposite directions by two of the accused on each side and Shastry was thus strangled to death
His body was buried in a pit dug in the river bed
The rope which was found round the neck of the dead body when it was exhumed is said to be the rope with which PWs 3 to 6 and 9 were tied up and as the one that the members of the gang brought from the house of Silam Brahmareddi PW 17 earlier that evening when the village was raided and the Congress workers were marched to the Congress flag
There is also evidence that the party of the accused when they first encountered the party of the deceased asked who and where was Venkatakrishna Shastry
The assailants who were armed to the teeth indulged in threats to kill all of them
The deceased was a Congress leader and it is not surprising that he was singled out for terrific punishment while the others were let off with a good thrashing and admonitions that they should give up their Congress affi liations
It is but natural in the circumstances that they should take away the deceased to a distant place to do away with him
That he was so led by the group of the accused is also corroborated by the evidence of Yesob PW 12 who was watching his jawar crop on the night in question in a neighbouring field
Let us now turn to the exhumation of the dead body the inquest report the postmortem certificate and the evidence of the doctor P W 7
The patwari of Sakrivedu PW 10 sent a report on the 8th February 1949 that he had information that a dead body lay buried in the river bed
The report has not 254 been filed but its purport about the condition of the body is given in the inquest report as unidentifiable
Two police sub inspectors and some constables reached the river bed the same day and exhumed the body
Its then condition is described in these words in the inquest report It was noticed that a rope of Chinna and Ambara was wrapped from neck to the waist
Both hands were missing and out of the two legs one was attached to the body with little flesh
The bones of the other separated leg the down part of the knee and the bones of one hand were found in the pit
There were some hairs in the head
The flesh of the face was rotten and decayed
Teeth are safe and sound
There is rotten flesh from the neck to the buttocks
It appears that this dead body is of a Hindu Brahmin
The panchnama is signed by two persons one of whom HAS BEEN EXAMINED AS PW 16
He along with the witnesses who gave evidence as co sufferers with the deceased in the communist raid of that evening have identified the body as that of Venkatakrishna Shastry
The doctor s postmortem certificate is exhibit 2 and according to it the body was petrified and even the marks of strangulation could not be detected both the palms had been cut out the left hand was severed completely there was only the left eye in a rotten condition the right eye was not found the right ear was not there
Examined as PW 7 the doctor has said that the face of the corpse could not be identified as the scalp was eaten away by mud and the bony structure of the face was present
In the face of this evidence the learned counsel for the appellants contended with much force that identification must have been impossible and that the witnesses who speak to the same should be disbelieved
Two factors are however overlooked in this argument
Though the body was in an advanced state of decomposition and many parts of the limbs were missing and even the flesh in the face was gone it would not have been difficult for close associates of 255 Venkatakrishna Shastry to say that it was his corpse from the general features form outline contour build of the body and the appearance of such of the limbs as were available to see
His friend Madhusudhana Rao PW 15 was working with the deceased for some years in the Congress office and knew him well indeed
There is his evidence about identification
More important still is the identification of the rope round the neck of the body the dhoti with the violet border that was on its waist and the janjam or the holy thread
The rope was brought from the house of Brahma Reddy PW 17
It was the one which was tied in loops round each member of the Congress group as they were led from the village to the redgram field it was the rope that was used to lead Venkatakrishna Shastry to the brooklet and it was the rope that was found round the neck of the dead body when it was unearthed
The bordered dhoti which was on the corpse belonged to Venkatakrishna Shastry
From these external marks and the general features friends of the deceased like PWs 3 to 6 and 9 and PW 17 in whose house Shastry was living could say we think that the body buried in the waist deep pit in the bed of the river was that of Venkatakrishna Shastry
Whether he is regarded as an accomplice or as the sole witness of the offence PW 14 has been corroborated in such a manner that his evidence about the steps taken by the accused immediately prior to the perpetration of the murder carries conviction to our minds
The connection of the accused with the crime must be held to have been made out
We have also to accept that the dead body recovered was that of Venkatakrishna Shastry and no question of the absence of the body arises
For this gruesome and revolting murder the appellants have got only imprisonment for life for which they must be thankful to the difference of opinion that arose among the learned Judges of the High Court
The appeal fails and is dismissed


Summary:
There is no warrant for the extreme proposition that if a man sees the perpetration of a crime and does not give information of it to anyone else he might well be regarded in law as an accomplice and that he could be put in the dock with the actual criminals
A person may be present and if not aiding and abetting be neither principal nor accessory as if A happens to be present at a murder and takes no part in it nor endeavours to prevent it or to apprehend the murderer this course of conduct will not of itself render him either principal or accessory
Russell on Crime 10th Edition p 1846 referred to
33 248 In the matter of corroboration of the evidence of a single witness against the accused what the law requires is that there should be such corroboration of the material part of the story connecting the accused with the crime as will satisfy reasonable minds that the man can be regarded as a truthful witness
The corroboration need not be direct evidence that the accused committed the crime it is sufficient if it is merely circumstantial evidence of his connection with the crime
The nature of the corroboration will depend on and vary according to the particular circumstances of each case
Rex vs Baskerville 1916 2 KBD 658 referred to