In order to convict a person based on the evidence of an approver, the evidence must be corroborated by independent evidence that connects or tends to connect the accused with the crime.

Judgement

S. J. IMAM J. : The appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for life under S. 302 by the Sessions Judge of Birbhum who agreed with the majority verdict of the jury that he was guilty. He appealed against his conviction to the Calcutta High Court. That Court being of the opinion that there was no misdirection in the Sessions Judge s charge to the jury dismissed the appeal. Two persons Jagdish Gorain and Sudhir Gorain were also tried along with the appellant but were acquitted by the jury whose verdict the Sessions Judge accepted. The appellant appealed to the High Court for a certificate to appeal to this Court which was refused. The present appeal is by special leave.

2. According to the prosecution Sibapada Hati was married to a girl by the name of Lila. About a month previous to the date of occurrence the appellant had made a proposal to her that she should live with him which was rejected. The appellant thought that the removal of Sibapada Hati would clear the way and improve his chance of gaining Lila s favour. Accordingly he murdered Sibapada Hati on 26-5-1955. In that murder he was assisted by Jagdish orain, Sudhir Gorain and the approver Sastipada Ghose:

3. The conviction of the appellant depended on the evidence of the approver and the circumstantial evidence which corroborated him in connecting or tending to connect the appellant with the murder of the deceased Sibapada Hati. Unless there was a misdirection or non-direction amounting to a misdirection in the charge to the jury which, in fact, had occasioned a failure of justice the jury s verdict must prevail and it cannot be interfered with. The High Court was of the opinion that there was no misdirection in the Sessions Judge s charge to the jury and we are in agreement with the High Court.

4. We have examined the charge to the jury. The Sessions Judge in dealing with the evidence of the approver charged the jury as follows:

Before doing so, some established legal principles as regards the approver s evidence and the confessions on which the prosecution has relied in the present case are required to be explained to you. The approver is a competent witness against an accused person and although his evidence is strictly admissible and a conviction is not illegal, merely because it is based on approver s evidence, it is a settled rule of practice not to convict a person on such evidence except under very rare and exceptional circumstances, and usually substantial corroboration is required. I, therefore, warn you, gentlemen, that it is highly dangerous to convict on approver s evidence alone. There can, no doubt be a legal conviction upon the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice and, as already stated, the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice is strictly admissible and a conviction based on it alone is not illegal, yet you should remember, gentlemen, that experience teaches us that an accomplice being always an infamous person, he having thrown to the wolves his associates and friends in order to save his own skin and, though a criminal, has purchased his liberty by betrayal, his evidence must be received with very great caution and it is highly dangerous to act upon his evidence unless it is materially corroborated. I must also tell you that this rule as to corroboration has become a settled rule of practice of so universal an application that it has now almost the force an reverence of law. Corroboration must be as to the crime and the identity of each one of the accused and the corroboration required must be independent evidence, that is reliable evidence of another kind.

Evidence in corroboration must be independent testimony, which affects the accused by connecting or tending to connect the accused with the crime. In other words, it must be evidence which implicates him, that is, which confirms in some material particulars not only the evidence that the crime has been committed but also that the prisoner (accused) committed it. Corroborative evidence,