Point of Law: Section 133 of the Evidence Act, makes an Accomplice a competent witness against the accused person and declares that a conviction shall not be illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an Accomplice. Even so, the established rule of practice evolved on the basis of human experience since times immemorial, is that it is unsafe to record a conviction on the testimony of an approver unless the same is corroborated in material particulars by some untainted and credible evidence. So consistent has been the commitment of the Courts to that rule of practice, that the same is now treated as a rule of law. Courts, therefore, not only approach the evidence of an approver with caution, but insist on corroboration of his version before resting a verdict of guilt against the accused, on the basis of such a deposition

JUDGMENT :

A.C. Rao, J.

1. The Criminal Appeal No. 582 of 2015 is filed at the instance of original accused Nos. 1, 5, 6 and 7 questioning the legality and validity of the judgment and order of the conviction passed by the Sessions Judge, Jamnagar dated 25.3.2015 in Sessions Case No. 132 of 2009 with Sessions Case No. 59 of 2010. The appellants are convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with Sections 120B, 34 and 114 of Indian Penal Code ["IPC" for short] and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/-; in default of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for 7 days. The appellants are further convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 364, 365, 34 and 114 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-; in default, to further undergo simple imprisonment for 7 days. The appellants are also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 2 years of rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-; in default of making payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for 3 days. There is no separate punishment imposed for the offence under Section 365 of IPC.

2. Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 2016 is preferred by the appellant original complainant whose father was kidnapped and murdered in the alleged offence. He has filed appeal against the acquittal of original accused No. 2 in the aforesaid case.

3. We take notice of the fact that in all there were 7 accused against whom the charge-sheets were filed by the prosecution but accused No. 4 was permitted to be an approver by the Sessions Judge, Jamnagar. In the result, accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 were put to trial in the Court of Sessions Judge, Jamnagar for the aforesaid offences. The original accused Nos. 2 and 3 were acquitted in connection with the said offences.;

4. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that, father and uncle of the complainant were having agricultural land admeasuring 115 bighas at Village Anandpur. The deceased father was managing the affairs of said agricultural land. It is the case of the complainant that accused No. 1 Babubhai and son of his uncle - Bhurabhai had filed Civil Litigations against the deceased. In all cases, the accused No. 1 had lost the litigation. According to the complainant, on 21.7.2009 at 4.00 p.m., he had received a phone call from his wife, who had informed him that Uttarri Kaka had informed her that Babubhai-deceased had gone to the temple and had not returned. Therefore, they inquired about the deceased at the place of relatives and other places and also inquired at Navsari at his uncle's place. It is alleged in the complaint that as Civil Litigations were pending and the accused No. 1 had lost in all cases, the accused No. 1 had kidnapped his father with the help of his friends. The complaint was filed before Kalavad Police Station. The investigating Officer had filed the charge-sheet before Kalavad Court, where it was numbered as Criminal Case N0.555 of 2009. As the case was triable by the Sessions Court, it Was committed to the Sessions Court Under Section 209 of Criminal Procedure Code ["CR.P.C." for short] and it was renumbered as Sessions Case No:132 of 2009.

5. It is pertinent to note that accused No. 7 had absconded and therefore, the charge-sheet Was filed against accused Nos. 1 to 6. Thereafter, accused No. 7 was arrested and the supplementary Charge-sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kalavad where it was registered as Criminal Case No. 379 of 2010. It was also committed to the Sessions Court, Jamnagar as per provisions of Section 209 of CR.P.C. and the said case was registered as Sessions Case No. 59 of 2009. Since both the Sessions Cases were arising out of the same incident and same complaint, both were tried together as per order dated 19.5.2011 of the Sessions Court.

6. It is pertinent to note that accused No. 4 Maganbhai Sanghani had made an application Exh. 14 for