1998 Supreme(Cal) 446

High Court Of Calcutta
Bijitendra Mohan Mitra, Surya Kumar Tiwari
RANADHIR BASU - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL 257  Of  1996
Decided On : 09/23/1998

The evidence of an approver is admissible and reliable if it is corroborated by other independent evidence. An accused can be convicted based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, but the court must carefully scrutinize such evidence and ensure that it is reliable.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL APPEAL - [KEYWORD] - [SUBJECT] - [ACT SECTION LIST] - [SUMMARY]

Fact of the Case:

The instant appeal is directed against a judgment of conviction against accused appellant No. 1, namely, Ranadhir Basu, under sections 301, 302/120b and 201 of Indian Penal Code and for the offence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code, the accused appellant is sentenced to death and he has been further awarded a sentence to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and, for the offence under section 201 of Indian Penal Code, the accused appellant is awarded a punishment of rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and, in default, to suffer imprisonment for a further period of one year. So far as the accused appellant No. 2 Krishnendu Jana is concerned, he is convicted of an offence under sections 302/120b and 302/109 of Indian Penal Code and, for the offence under section 302/120b of Indian Penal Code, he is sentenced to death and he is also sentenced for a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and, in default, to suffer rigourous imprisonment for a period of two years. The said appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, 1st court, Barasat, 24-Parganas (North) dated August 9, 1996. There are altogether two appeals before us, namely, Criminal Appeal Nos. 277 of 1996 and 257 of 1996. As such, both the appeals are taken up for hearing on contest.

Finding of the Court:

The evidence on record does not satisfy the ingredients of section 60 or pre-requisite conditions of section 60 not being fulfiled where grouping to other appeartenent evidence which also does not inspite our confidence. Even we are conscious of our limitation in view of the presumptive effect of section 114 of the Evidence Act and we are conscious that while making a presumption an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless he has corroborated any material particulars. Therefore, viewed in the light of section 60 read with illustration (b) of section 114 of Evidence Act, available materials of the connected proceeding against accused No. 2 Krishnendu Jana do not inspire our confidence and we cannot, as such, uphold the conviction and sentence passed by trial court against accused No. 2. As such, in presence of our doubts being cleared beyond any shadow of doubt, we cannot sustain the conviction of accused No. 2 Krishnendu Jana in respect of offence under section 302, 120b and 302/109 IPC and, as such, the said sentence and conviction are set aside. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No. 277 of 1996 stands allowed and the judgment under appeal is set aside so far as accused No. 2 Krishnendu Jana is concerned. In veiw of our foregoing discussions with regard to culpability of offence of accused No. 1, namely, Ranadhir Basu, who is convicted of the offence under section 302, 302/120 and 201 IPC and for commission of offence under section 302 IPC and we hold accused No. 1 guilty of the commission of the said offence. Now we are to consider the question of propriety of holding the death sentence meted out to accused No. 1 by the trial court. Accordingly, we are constrained to confirm the award of death penalty given to accused appellant No. 1 and, as such, conviction and sentence awarded to Ranadhir Basu of the offence under sections 302, 302/120b and 201 and also for the offence under section 302 IPC are hereby confirmed and we approve of the award of death penalty meted out to accused No. 1 Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No. 257 of 1996 stands dismissed on contest.

Issues: Whether the evidence of an approver is admissible and reliable? Whether the accused can be convicted based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice? Whether the accused was denied the opportunity for cross-examination of the approver? Whether the accused was absent or denied the opportunity for cross-examination of the witnesses? Whether the trial court had the jurisdiction to record the evidence of the approver in his chamber? Whether the death sentence awarded to accused No. 1 is justified?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The evidence of an approver is admissible and reliable if it is corroborated by other independent evidence. 2. An accused can be convicted based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, but the court must carefully scrutinize such evidence and ensure that it is reliable. 3. The accused was not denied the opportunity for cross-examination of the approver, as he was given the chance to cross-examine the approver in the presence of the Magistrate. 4. The accused was not absent or denied the opportunity for cross-examination of the witnesses, as he was present in court during the trial and had the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. 5. The trial court had the jurisdiction to record the evidence of the approver in his chamber, as the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the court to hold proceedings in camera in certain circumstances. 6. The death sentence awarded to accused No. 1 is justified, given the heinous nature of the crime and the lack of any mitigating circumstances.

Final Decision: Criminal Appeal No. 277/96 is allowed, and the judgment under appeal is set aside so far as accused No. 2 Krishnendu Jana is concerned. Criminal Appeal No. 257 of 1996 is dismissed on contest.