Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

SHRISHAIL NAGESHI PARE versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided
25 March 1985
Judges listed
O. CHINNAPPA REDDY (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1985] 3 S.C.R. 461 · 1985 INSC 67
Also cited as
  • AIR 1985 SC 866 (4 citing judgments)
  • (1985) 2 SCC 341 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

::~-\\,;;·:·_~~.·- ~-t·'.1;, _.: -~'.---. : \.··. ·:",:

p. 462

Cm~APPA 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 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 a 'ti:ipc)ci' 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~'

p. 462

~-- -···~ ~ ,.~·.··· . e11ro,rfewenfwhen .. t~e. !!thee ... evi~en~e., 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 is, the confession, will not; like.all the King's horses ~pyhe Kirig's men wo'!ld put Humpty Dumpty,to~ether," ,. , .. ,

p. 462

S. N. PARii •. MAHARASHTRA (dinnappa Reddy, f.) 4th

p. 463

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 cannot, for instance, be made to• "depend for its acceptance on the 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 confession cannot be the foundation of a conviction but can only constitute '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:" 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 to repeat what is so well established that a retracted confession by an accused may form the basis o( a 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"~·~;, sorry to fin~ such careless statements · in the judgment of a High Court.

p. 463

Special leave petition is dismissed.

p. 463, margin E

~-.~

p. 463, margin E

- ' _..,.,~· N.V.K. Petition dismiSsed

p. 463, margin E

,. -~:

p. 463, margin E

'" .. I~ ....

p. 463, margin E