SYED M.FAZAL ALI, J.

(1) THIS appeal has been filed under S. 2(a) of the Supreme court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 and is directed against the judgment of the High court of Punjab and Haryana reversing the acquittal of the appellant and convicting her under Section 302/120-B. Indian Penal Code to imprisonment for life. The High Court had also convicted one Sarup Singh under S. 302 to imprison- ment for life, but no appeal appeared to have been filed by Sarup Singh in this Court. We shall therefore confine our attention only so far as the case of the appellant, Mukhtiar Kaur is concerned. The facts leading to the death of the deceased Jaggar Singh has been detailed in the judgment of the High court and trial court and it is not necessary to repeat the same. It appears that PW 2, Hardayal Sinsh. approver and the accused Sarup Singh were close friends and were indulging for some time in the smuggling of opium. Sarup Singh bore serious animus against the deceased Jaggar Singh because be had given evidence in a murder case against the brother of Sarup Singh and on the basis of his (Jaggar) evidence the brother of Sarup Singh was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life. This appears to be the main motive for hatching the conspiracy to kill Jaggar Singh. According to the prosecution, Jaggar Singh was picked up from his house and taken first to the kotha of Hardayal Singh and thereafter to the kotha of Zora Singh, Public Witness 13. The appellant is said to have accompanied Sarup Singh and Hardayal Singh. the approver. The central evidence in the case consists of the testimony of the approver who has given the essential details of the prosecution case and the manner in which Jaggar Singh was taken to the kotha of 7ora Singh. Public Witness 13 and then taken in a taxi brought by Zora Singh to a lonely place and thereafter decoved to a jungle where he was shot. The trial court disbelieved the entire testimony of the approver and held that the story given by the approver was a tissue of lies and was wholly impro- bable. The High court however on reappraisal of the evidence of the approver disagreed with the trial court and believed the approver as they held that it was corroborated against the two accused in material particulars.

(2) IN the instant case. we are only concerned with the role played by Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur in the conspiracy to murder the deceased. Apart from the evidence of the approver, we do not find any satisfactory evidence to corroborate his evidence regarding the participation of the appellant. In the first place, reliance was placed on the recovery of a golden ring belonging to the deceased from the trunk at the instance of the appellant Mukhtiar Kaur. This recovery does not appear to be of any importance because Public Witness 8, Tej Kaur. the widow of Jaggar Singh has clearly admitted that her husband Jaggar Singh had illicit intimacy with the appellant and for that reason she was not treated well by her husband. In view of the friendly relations of the deceased with the appellant, the possibility that the ring owned by the deceased may have been given to Mukhtiar Kaur cannot be excluded and that explains the possession of the ring with Mukhtiar Kaur which she got recovered from the trunk. Moreover Public Witness 8 is not an independent witness because she was inimically disposed towards the appellant who was having illicit relations with her husband.

(3) IT was contended by Mr. Harbans Singh that Public Witness 8 has deposed that even at the time when Jaggar Singh left the house, he was wearing the ring recovered from the house of the appellant. This however does not carry the matter any further because the possibility that the deceased may have passed on the ring to the appellant between the house of Tej Kaur and the kotha of Zora Singh cannot be excluded. The other circumstance relied upon by the prosecution to corroborate the evidence of the approver wa