Order: Accused 1 to 6 in Calendar Case No. 11 of 1963 on the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Peermade, who have been convicted of house-breaking and theft and whose appeal before the Sessions Judge, Kottayam has been dismissed have filed this Revision Petition. The first accused is the tea maker in tea factory belonging to the Malayalam Plantations at Peermade. The second accused is a factory labourer, accused 3 and 4 are watchmen in the factory and accused 5 and 6 are strangers belonging to Mundakayam alleged to have been engaged by the first accused for the commission of the theft. P.W.2, Mr. Marr is the Superintendent of the estate. P.W.3 is a labourer working in the factory. According to the prosecution on 1st February, 1962 at about 4 p.m. the first accused called P.W.3 to his residence. Accused 2 to 6 were then present there. The first accused asked P.W.3 whether he was going to join them in committing theft of tea from the factory. P.W.3 agreed but he now deposes that he agreed to join them not because he wanted to commit theft but because he wanted to detect the commission of theft which was taking place in the factory. All the accused and P.W.3 went to the factory at about 10-30 p.m. The 6th accused had taken some gunny bags from the house of the first accused. According to P.W.3 he was stationed at the gate to watch if anybody was coming. The rest of the accused proceeded to the factory, the first accused opened the main door of the factory and all of them got inside, a little later the first accused alone came out, locked the door from outside and went back to his house. P.W.2 the Superintendent had, on that day, gone for a party to Mundakayam and returned home by about 11-15 p.m. On seeing P.W.2’s car, P.W.3 went and reported the matter to him. P.W.2 took with him the Supervisor P.W.4 and went to the factory. The third accused who was the Watchman was found standing near the main door of the factory which was seen locked. P.W.2 enquired of the third accused whether anybody was inside, to which he replied that there was none inside. P.W.4 was then directed to go to the other side to see that nobody escapes. The third accused who was the Watchman was found standing near the main door of the factory which was seen locked. P.W.2 enquired of the third accused whether anybody was inside, to which he replied that there was none inside. P.W.4 was then directed to go to the other side to see that nobody escapes. P.W. 2 went to the gate and called out the name of the first accused and some others. On going to the back portion of the factory P.W.4 saw the door of the heater room opened and the fourth accused was seen coming out. On questioning him he said that there was none inside. P.W.4 entered the heater room and found the door between the heater room and the drier room which could be opened only from inside the drier room open. By that time P.W.6 and others reached and they also entered the room. The light was switched on and they found accused 2, 5 and 6 had got on and was sitting on the belt guard. P.W.2 was called and he was shown accused 2, 5 and 6. P.W. 2 then asked them to get down. Accused 5 and 6 were questioned and they stated that they were from Mundakayam and that they had gone there at the instance of the first accused to remove tea. On inspection, around bin Nos. 8, 16 gunny bags filled with tea and three other bags partially filled up with tea were found. P.W.1 the Office Clerk was then sent for and old what had happened and he was directed to go to the Police Station and give the first information statement. P.W.7 the Sub-Inspector of Police recorded a statement Exhibit P-1 from P.W.1 and registered a case. P.W.7 then came to the factory and accused 2 to 6 who had been detained there were arrested. He then and there questioned P.Ws. 2, 3, 4 and 6. The next day at 11 a.m., the first accused was arrested and his house was searched. After completing the investigation the accused were charge-sheeted. When examined under section 342, Criminal Procedure Code, the first accused admitted that he was the tea maker of the estate. He said that one key of the factory is with him and the other key was with the Superintendent. He denied having gone with the other accused and opened the factory gate. When examined under section 342, Criminal Procedure Code, the first accused admitted that he was the tea maker of the estate. He said that one key of the factory is with him and the other key was with the Superintendent. He denied having gone with the other accused and opened the factory gate. He said that his assistants used to lock the factory every evening. On 1st December, 1962 at 4-30 p.m. he left the factory ana denied what had happened. The other accused also denied commission of offence. Believing the prosecution evidence the learned Magistrate found all the accused guilty. The matter was taken up to the Sessions Judge of Kottayam in appeal and the learned Judge on a reappraisal of the evidence confirmed the conviction and the sentence. Aggrieved with the order the accused have come up in Revision to this Court. Elaborate arguments were addressed regarding the case against each of the accused and learned Counsel strenuously contended that the Courts below have not considered the evidence against each of the accused separately and if the evidence is properly analysed it would be found that there is no evidence worth the name against accused 1 and 3 and in any view of the case they at least are entitled to an acquittal. I will now deal with the case against each of the accused. The only evidence against the first accused is the evidence of P.W.3. If P.W.3 is an accomplice and if there is no corroboration accused 1 and 3 would be entitled to an acquittal. On his own evidence that he agreed to join in committing theft of tea dust from the factory and proceeded along with other accused and kept guard as required by them P.W.3 satisfies the test of being an accomplice. An accomplice is a person who is a participant in the commission of the actual crime charged againt the accused. His subsequent evidence in Court that he had a purpose in joining the other accused will not take him out of the category of accomplice witnesses. It is easily said that he joined in the crime to detect thefts taking place in the factory. It is difficult to understand why of all persons P.W. 2 had entrusted this witness with the mission. It is easily said that he joined in the crime to detect thefts taking place in the factory. It is difficult to understand why of all persons P.W. 2 had entrusted this witness with the mission. The evidence of P.W.3 that he participated in the crime which alone gave him the opportunity to bear witness to the occurrence seems to be extremely doubtful. It is hardly likely that the first accused having specially got two persons from Mundakayam and three other coolies including the watchman from the factory would have made use of a person like P.W.3 for services of the nature which P.W.3 claims to have performed. P.W.3 was only asked to remain at the gate which work could easily have been done by the third accused who is a watchman in the factory and it is surprising that at the time when P.W.2 reached the factory the third accused in fact was seen doing his duty as watchman in front of the factory. The evidence of P.W.3 reads extremely artificial. If really he had witnessed the incident and he Was the person who gave information to P.W.2 and he had told P.W.2 that the first accused had opened the main door of the factory and led the other accused inside and that information was conveyed by P.W.2 to P.W.1 the first informant the name of P.W. 3 would certainly have found a place in the earliest complaint Exhibit P-1. I have carefully gone through the evidence of P.W.3 and I must frankly say that I am not at all impressed by his evidence. Now assuming that P.W.3’s evidence can be accepted the first question that would arise is whether it is corroborated in material particulars with regard to the participation of the accused concerned. The leading case in which the principles are fully enunciated and set forth The King v. Baskerville1, and these rules have been reiterated by the Supreme Court with the declaration that the law is precisely the same in India, Rameswar v. State2. The leading case in which the principles are fully enunciated and set forth The King v. Baskerville1, and these rules have been reiterated by the Supreme Court with the declaration that the law is precisely the same in India, Rameswar v. State2. As the learned Judges sated in The King v. Baskervilli1: “After examining these and other authorities to the present date, we have come to the conclusion that the better opinion of the law upon this point is that stated in Reg v. Stubbss, by Parke B. namely, that the evidence of an accomplice must be confirmed not only as to the circumstances of the crime, but also as to the identity of the prisoner........It is sufficient if there is confirmation as to a material circumstance of the crime, and of the identity of the accused in relation to the crime.” A scrutiny of the Indian authorities shows that the law is the same here, and that the corroboration should extend to the identity of the accused person. The nature and extent of corroboration necessary in such a case has been laid down in the case in Rameswar v. State2. It is true that it is not necessary that there should be independent confirmation of every material circumstance in the sense that the independent evidence in the case, apart from the testimony of the complainant or the accomplice, should in itself be sufficient to sustain conviction. 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 accomplice or complainant that the accused committed the crime. It is also laid down that the corroboration must come from an independent source and thus ordinarily the testimony of one accomplice would not be sufficient to corroborate that of another. The corroboration need not be by direct evidence that the accused committed the crime. It is sufficient if it is merely circumstantial evidence of his connection with the crime. In this connection their Lordships of the Supreme Court, in the case referred to above, have also considered the effect of section 157 of the Evidence Act. It has been pointed out that this section makes no exceptions. It is sufficient if it is merely circumstantial evidence of his connection with the crime. In this connection their Lordships of the Supreme Court, in the case referred to above, have also considered the effect of section 157 of the Evidence Act. It has been pointed out that this section makes no exceptions. Provided the conditions prescribed, that is to say, “at or about the time etc.” are fulfilled there can be no doubt that such a statement is legally admissible as corroboration. In the case in Sahu v. The King4, it has been stated that one accomplice cannot corroborate another and their Lordships stated that tainted evidence does not lose its taint by repetition. Although a previous statement of an accomplice satisfying the requirements of section 157 of the Evidence Act can be used to corroborate his testimony it is not an independent corroboration required by the rule. Therefore I cannot agree with the learned Sessions Judge that the evidence of P.W.2 that P.W.3 told him as to what had taken place then and there would satisfy the test of independent corroboration connecting the accused with the crime. The mere fact that some of the other accused were found inside the factory would not also amount to corroboration as far as accused 1 and 3 are concerned. The evidence shows that one of the keys of the factory would be with the first accused, the Tea maker ana the duplicate key would be with the Superintendent P.W.2. P.W. 2has frankly conceded that he is not in possession of that key and he does not know what has happened to the duplicate key. It is therefore not unlikely that the missing key had been taken possession of by some other person and that had been made use of for opening the door of the factory. It may as well be that some body would have kept the door leading to the outside unbolted the previous evening when the factory doors were being closed and had gained access inside by opening that door. The other circumstances also referred to by the Courts below do not, in any way, advance the prosecution case. The mere fact that the first accused did not respond and come to the factory is not an incriminating circumstance against the first accused. The other circumstances also referred to by the Courts below do not, in any way, advance the prosecution case. The mere fact that the first accused did not respond and come to the factory is not an incriminating circumstance against the first accused. Regarding the entries in Exhibits P-3, P-4 and P-5 and the over writings and corrections referred to, even the learned Sessions Judge has not placed any reliance as there is no satisfactory evidence that the first accused was the person who had tampered with the entries. The finding of the Courts below on the essential part of the prosecution story in respect of the complicity of the first accused rests on the evidence of the accomplice alone uncorroborated by any other evidence and that being so his conviction has to be reversed. His conviction and sentence are set aside and he is ordered to be acquitted. As far as the third accused is concerned he is admittedly the Watchman of the factory. The only evidence that he also joined the other accused in entering the factory is the evidence of P.W.3 which, as I have already stated, is not corroborated. The conviction and sentence of the third accused is set aside and he is also ordered to be acquitted. Regarding accused 2 and 4 to 6 when P.Ws.2, 4 and others put on electric light and entered the drier room they found accused 2, 5 and 6 sitting on the belt guard in their attempt to conceal their presence inside the factory. Accused 5 and 6 have nothing to do with the factory and are outsiders. Accused 2 and 4 are employees in the estate and they had also no reason to be inside the factory at that time of the night. P.W. 4 also saw the door of the heater room open and fourth accused coming out. On enquiry the fourth accused told him that there was none inside the factory. He had also no explanation as to why he happened to remain in the factory alone with outsiders. The Courts below have accepted the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that all these four persons were found inside the factory. The conviction under section 457 and 380, Indian Penal Code, as against them is therefore unassailable. He had also no explanation as to why he happened to remain in the factory alone with outsiders. The Courts below have accepted the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that all these four persons were found inside the factory. The conviction under section 457 and 380, Indian Penal Code, as against them is therefore unassailable. I do not agree with the learned Counsel that it would be proper for invoking the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. The conviction and sentence against accused 2 and 4 to 6 are confirmed and the Revision Petition as far as they are concerned is dismissed. M.C.M. ----- Order accordingly.