In which of the following case, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that “Section 114, illustration (b) of the Evidence Act, envisages the presumptive uncredit worthiness of an accomplice. But, then section 133 of the Evidence Act provides that a conviction is not illegal merely because it rests upon an uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. 

Indictments, particularly of serious crimes, the concept of caution and the rule of prudence enjoin that it is unsafe to rest a conviction on the evidence of a guilty partner in a crime without independent corroboration on the material particulars. Judicial experience was thus, elevated to a rule of law. “It is a practice” it is said “which deserves all the reference of law”.