Case: Dagdu & Others Etc v State Of Maharashtra
Date of Order / Judgment: 16th September, 2024
The Matter Heard by Bench: Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, Justice P.K. Goswami, Justice P.N. Shingal
Background
In the case of Dagdu v State of Maharashtra, the primary issue revolved around the
admissibility and reliability of accomplice testimony in a criminal trial. The appellant,
Dagdu, was convicted based on the testimony of an accomplice, among other evidence. The
defense challenged the conviction, arguing that the accomplice's testimony was not
corroborated and thus should not be relied upon for the conviction. The case raised
significant questions regarding the standards for using accomplice testimony and the
procedural requirements for admitting confessions under Section 164 of the Criminal
Procedure Code (CrPC).
Issues
- 1. Admissibility and Reliability of Accomplice Testimony:
- o Whether Section 30 and Section 114 Illustration (b) of the Indian Evidence
Act, and Section 133, which relate to the admissibility and corroboration of
accomplice testimony, are contradictory.
- o Whether an accomplice's testimony, if uncorroborated, can still be a valid
basis for conviction.
- 2. Confession and Compliance with Section 164 of CrPC:
- o Whether a confession can be ignored if it does not comply with the procedural
safeguards prescribed under Section 164 of the CrPC.
Observation
- 1. On Accomplice Testimony:
- o The Court clarified that admissibility and reliability are distinct issues.
Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act allows for the confession of co-accused
to be admitted as evidence, while Section 133 states that a conviction based
solely on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice is not illegal.
However, Section 114 Illustration (b) suggests that an accomplice is generally
unworthy of credit unless corroborated in material facts.
- o The Court observed that while Section 114 Illustration (b) prescribes
corroboration for high reliability, Section 133 allows for conviction based on
uncorroborated accomplice testimony, provided that such testimony is not
inherently unreliable or incredible.
- 2. On Confession Compliance with Section 164 CrPC:
- o The Court held that all procedural safeguards under Section 164 of the CrPC
must be adhered to ensure the confession's validity. However, non-compliance
with Section 164 does not render the confession inadmissible. Rather, it
affects the reliability and weight of the confession. While a confession may be
admitted despite procedural lapses, it cannot be relied upon solely for
conviction without corroboration or additional supporting evidence.
Decision
The Supreme Court of India held that there is no contradiction between Section 114
Illustration (b) and Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act. While Section 114 Illustration (b)
suggests that an accomplice’s testimony requires corroboration for high reliability, Section
133 allows for conviction based on an accomplice’s uncorroborated testimony. They address
different aspects of the legal process—one related to reliability and the other to the legality of
conviction based on such testimony.
Furthermore, the Court emphasized that while compliance with Section 164 of the CrPC is
essential for procedural correctness, a confession’s admissibility is not strictly contingent on
such compliance. However, in the absence of compliance, the confession's evidentiary weight
may be compromised.