1996 Supreme(SC) 867

1996(4) Supreme 549
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.K. Mukherjee and S.P. Kurdukar, JJ.
Niranjan Singh -Appellant
versus
State of Punjab -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 160 of 1986
Decided on 26-4-1996

IMPORTANT POINT
Ordinarily, combined effect of Sections 133 and 114 of the Evidence Act is that conviction can be based on uncorroborated testimony of an approver but as a rule of prudence it is unsafe to place reliance on the uncorroborated testimony of an approver.

Headnote:(i) Evidence Act, 1872-Sections 133 and 114-Approver-Conviction can be based on uncorroborated testimony of an approver-Rule of caution-As a rule of prudence it is unsafe to place reliance on uncorroborated testimony of an approver-Court must scrutinize evidence of an approver carefully-Story given by an approver so far as accused on trial is concerned, must implicate him in such a manner as to give rise to a conclusion of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.-Suresh Chandra Bahri s case : 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 80 : Relied on.

       Held : It is well settled that the approver s evidence must pass the double test of reliability and corroboration in material particulars. It is sad that the approver is a most unworthy friend and he having bargained for his immunity must prove his worthiness for credibility in Court. Firstly, we will have to scrutinize the evidence of Gurjant Singh (P.W.3), approver carefully to find out as to whether his evidence can be accepted as trustworthy. Secondly, once that hurdle is crossed the story given by an approver so far as the accused on trial is concerned, must implicate him in such a manner as to give rise to a conclusion of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Ordinarily, combined effect of Sections 133 and 114 of the Evidence Act is that conviction can be based on uncorroborated testimony of an approver but as a rule of prudence it is unsafe to place reliance on the uncorroborated testimony of an approver. Section 114 illustration (b) incorporates a rule of caution to which the courts should have regard. (Para 12)

       (ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 120-B, 302/34 and 201-Conviction of three accused under-Confirmed by High Court-Appellant alone filed this Court-Prosecution case rests on evidence of an approver-Fact of actual assault on deceased by accused although deposed to by approver remained uncorroborated in material particulars-On issue of conspiracy to eliminate deceased, evidence of approver that all accused were to meet at house of accused finds corroboration-What happened thereafter at house of accused lacks corroboration-Omnibus statement that accused A and other accused assaulted deceased-Conviction under Section 302 unsustainable-No evidence to indicate that appellant had any grudge against deceased-Sufficient evidence to hold appellant guilty under Sections 120-B and 201-Sentence of one year and 9 months.

       Held : Applying the law laid down by this Court as regards approver s evidence we are of the opinion that having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case the evidence of Gurjant Singh (P.W.3) the approver needs corroboration in material particulars bridging closely the distance between the crime and the criminal. (Para 13)

       Further held : The High Court in its impugned judgment has referred to several circumstances relating to the murder of Harnek Singh that are deposed to by Gurjant Singh (P.W.3) the approver and for which the High Court sought corroboration from other evidence of independent and disinterest witnesses examined by the prosecution. After going through the judgment of the High Court and the record of the case we are of the opinion that an important circumstance, namely, the fact of actual assault on Harnek Singh (deceased) by the accused although deposed to by Gurjant Singh (P.W.3) the approver remained uncorroborated in material particulars. (Para 14)

       On the issue of conspiracy to eliminate Harnek Singh (deceased) the approver has stated that all the accused were to meet at the house of Amrik Singh (accused) where he was to bring Harnek Singh for dinner. The evidence of the approver further shows that Amrik Singh and deceased Harnek Singh went to Niranjan Singh (P.W.12) to deliver the Bhog ceremony card. Niranjan Singh (P.W.12) then stated that at the request of Amrik Singh he gave his motor cycle to him on which both of them went away. To this extent this part of the story deposed to by Gurjant Singh (P.W.3) the approver can be accepted as it finds corroboration from the evidence of Niranjan Singh (P.W.12). What happened thereafter at the house of Amrik Singh (accused) lacks corroboration to the evidence of Gurjant Singh (P.W.3) the approver. According to the evidence of Gurjant Singh (P.W.3) the approver, the accused Amrik Singh insisted upon Harnek Singh (deceased) to have the dinner at his place and stay during that night. It is further the evidence of the approver that Harnek Singh (deceased) agreed to the said suggestion. They all had liquor and dinner thereafter. (Para 15)

       Consequently held : Apart from the aforesaid finding recorded by the High Court we have also gone through the evidence of Gurjant Singh (P.W.3) the approver and what we find from his evidence is an omnibus statement that Amrik Singh, the accused and the other accused also assaulted Harnek Singh (deceased). Only from this omnibus statement, in the absence of any corroboration to the evidence of Gurjant Singh (P.W.3) on record we are unable to sustain the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC. The High Court did refer to the law on this topic but, however, this circumstance does not appear to have been well projected before the High Court and, therefore, there is no discussion on this aspect of the case in the impugned judgment. In these circumstances we are unable to sustain the conviction of the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and consequently the conviction and sentence of the appellant on that count is set aside. (Para 17)

       The evidence of Gurjant Singh (P.W.3) the approver shows that Amrik Singh, the accused was the Sarpanch of the village and his position as a Sarpanch was likely to come in danger at the instance of Harnek Singh (deceased). Naturally, therefore, Amrik Singh the accused may have an axe to grind against Harnek Singh (deceased) but there is no evidence on the record to indicate that the appellant, Niranjan Singh had any grudge against Harnek Singh. It is true that the appellant, Niranjan Singh was said to be the close associate of Amrik singh but that by itself would not suggest any motive on the part of the appellant Niranjan Singh to commit the murder of Harnek Singh. After consideration the evidence of Gurjant Singh (P.W.3) the approver we are of the opinion that his evidence relating to the role of the appellant Niranjan Singh has remained uncorroborated in material particulars and in the absence of such corroboration we find it difficult to accept the evidence of the approver in that behalf. (Para 18)

       Then held : The evidence of Gurjant Singh (P.W.3) the approver finds sufficient corroboration from the evidence of Gurnam Singh (P.W.6) who saw the appellant and other accused in a tractor during the later part of the night. The tractor was driven by Amrik Singh, the accused. Gurnam Singh (P.W.6) further stated that he saw the appellant and other accused with a motor cycle and a cot on the trolley attached to the tractor. Gurnam Singh (P.W.6) seeing the tractor and the accused persons in the trolley enquired from them the reason for their presence at this odd hour. It is said that Niranjan Singh, the appellant gave a wrong explanation to satisfy the anxiety of Gurnam Singh (P.W.6) that he was carrying his relative who suffered from pneumonia. This explanation by the appellant Niranjan Singh was found to be untrue. The trial Court as well as the High Court has accepted the evidence of Gurjant Singh (P.W.3) and the evidence of Gurnam Singh (P.W.6) as trustworthy and accordingly convicted the appellant for an offence punishable under Sections 120-B and 201 IPC. (Para 19)

       The tractor and trolley owned by Amrik Singh, the accused developed a fault and was stranded near the railway track and thereafter Amrik Singh contacted Gandoor Singh (P.W.4) and Ranjit Singh (P.W.5) residents of village Chotian to tow-chain the said tractor and trolley and bring it to the village Chotian. This all happened on 8th December, 1980 at about 5.00 a.m. Both these witnesses then brought the tractor and trolley to village Chotian. On the following day Amrik Singh and Niranjan Singh, the appellant went to the said village and after knowing the suspicion entertained by Gandoor Singh (P.W.4) and Ranjit Singh (P.W.5) as regards the foul play since the blood was found on the trolley, Amrik Singh and Niranjan Singh (accused) brought the said tractor to their village. The evidence of Gandoor Singh (P.W.4) and Ranjit Singh (P.W.5) corroborates the evidence of Gurjant Singh, the approver on this issue. In these circumstances we are of the opinion that the High Court was right in upholding the conviction of the appellant under Sections 120-B, 201 of the Indian Penal Code. (Para 20)