The legal principle established in the judgment emphasizes the significance of corroboration in the evidence of an accomplice and the necessity of compliance with Section 306 Cr. P. C. in examining an accomplice as a witness.

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) CHALLENGE in these appeals is to the judgment of a division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court dismissing the appeals filed by the appellants and upholding the conviction for offences punishable under Sections 364 and 396 read with section 120b of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'ipc' ). In fact, the High Court disposed of two appeals both directed against the judgment of conviction dated 16th July, 2002 and 23rd July, 2002 passed in Sessions Trial No. 156/1997. As noted above, the trial Court found both the accused appellants guilty and awarded the sentence of imprisonment for life for the offences punishable under Sections 364 and 396 IPC. However, no separate sentence under section 120b was awarded, while the co-accused Laxmi Prasad was further sentenced to the period already undergone for offence punishable under Section 412 IPC.

( 3 ) THE High Court did not find any substance in the appeals and dismissed the same as noted above.

( 4 ) BACKGROUND facts in a nutshell are as follows: on 8. 1. 1992, Gayatri Devi, wife of the informant, had gone to Pandra Agricultural Market by her Ambassador car bearing registration No. AAY 7375 and from there she left for her residence at about 8 PM after collecting the sale proceeds of the day of shop Nos. 244 to 251. The driver of the car, laxmi Paswan, who was one of the accused, was driving the car. Gayatri Devi after collecting a sum of Rs. 1,84,405/- did not return to her house, the informant informed Sukhdeo nagar P. S. regarding the missing of his wife and the driver of the car, Laxmi Paswan. Laxmi Paswan was employed by the informant as the driver of his car on the recommendation of the previous driver, namely, Rajendra Choudhary. When the wife of the informant as well as the driver did not return till night, the informant, on the next morning i. e. on 9. 1. 1992, submitted a written report alleging therein that Laxmi Paswan, driver of the car, in collusion with antisocial elements, abducted his wife and car in order to kill her and snatch the money. It was alleged that informant came to know from reliable sources that his car was seen in the night on Ranch Ramgarh road. On the basis of the aforesaid information, Sukhdeo nagar P. S. registered a case under Section 364 IPC against laxmi Paswan only and in course of investigation the dead body of the wife of the informant, namely, Gayatri Devi, was found on Giddi National road under Ramgarh P. S. After preparing the inquest report, in the presence of the witnesses, the I. 0. of the case sent the dead body to RMCH for postmortem. Subsequently, the car of the informant bearing registration No. AAY 7375 was found lying abandoned near kujju town outpost. Subsequently the officer incharge of sukhdeo Nagar P. S. took the said car from the Kujju TOP in his possession and a search was made in the presence of the witnesses and in the course of search, certain articles were seized. The seizure list was prepared and in the course of investigation, accused Laxmi Paswan was arrested on 14. 1. 1992 from his village Mungrahi within the district of aurangabad and a part of the money stolen from Gayatri Devi amounting to Rs. 30,695/- was also recovered from his house on the basis of his confessional statement. Laxmi Paswan disclosed the name of his associates to the police and subsequently, the other accused persons were also arrested. In course of investigation, on the basis of confessional statement, a sum of Rs. 27,220/- was also recovered from the house of Girja Singh. Later, one of the accused, namely, Lalit sanga was also arrested, who confessed his guilt before the police and expressed his desire to give statement with regard to the occurrence. His statement was recorded by Chief judicial Magistrate under Section 306 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (in short 'cr. P. C. ') and was granted pardon. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions, which was registered as ST No. 319/