Back
2013 Supreme(P&H) 1053
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Ms. Justice Anita Chaudhry
CRA-S No.2460-SB of 2008 (O&M)
Karambir Singh & Anr.
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 18/12/2013}
For the Appellants:Mr. Aman Pal, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Dhruv Dayal, DAG, Haryana.
Headnote:Accomplice--Approver's statement has to be corroborated in material particulars bridging closely the distance between the crime and the criminal.
Evidence Act, 1872, S.133--Accomplice--Held; The approver's statement has to be corroborated in material particulars bridging closely the distance between the crime and the criminal--The corroboration need not be of a kind which proves the offence against an accused but it should sufficiently connect the accused with the crime.
What is required is that there should be sufficient corroborative evidence to show that the approver is speaking the truth with regard to the accused whom he seeks to implicate--It is not necessary that there should be independent corroboration of every material circumstance and it need not consist of evidence which standing alone would be sufficient to justify the conviction--In other words, there should be additional evidence by way of corroboration rendering the story of an accomplice probably true and that it is reasonably safe to rely upon his statement--Ultimately, the question whether there is sufficient corroboration or not depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. (Para 28)
Ms. Anita Chaudhry, J.: (Oral) - The issue raised by the appellants in this appeal is whether conviction could be recorded solely on the statement of the approver if there is no corroboration to his statement.
2. The appellants were tried and convicted by Addl. Sessions Judge (I), Bhiwani, vide judgment of conviction dated 31.10.2008 and order of sentence dated 10.11.2008 in FIR No.48 dated 09.02.2004 registered for commission of offences punishable under Sections 307/34 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC at police station City Bhiwani and were sentenced to imprisonment mentioned herein below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accused Offence Sentence
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Karambir U/s 307 IPC read with Section Rigorous imprisonment for ten years.
120-B IPC
Dharambir U/s 307/34 IPC read with Section Rigorous imprisonment for ten years along
@ Ballu 120-B IPC with a fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one month.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. As accused Karambir was already undergoing sentence of life imprisonment in FIR No.414 dated 06.11.2004, it was specifically ordered that the sentence awarded in this case would run concurrently with the previous sentence awarded vide judgment dated 22.02.2007 (Ex.PEE). Accused Karambir died on 18.02.2012 and his appeal was dismissed as it had abated.
4. The facts may now be briefly put. Ramesh Masta was returning on his scooter after attending a wedding. At about 9.50 PM on 09.02.2004, he entered the Nai Kalala street when a red motorcycle crossed him, which had two young boys on the seat. The pillion rider of the motorcycle fired a shot at him with a small gun, which hit his back. The complainant could not see their faces but they were in the age group of 25-30 years. The boys, thereafter, fled on their motorcycle. The complainant went to the shop of Vikas Masta, who brought him to the Civil Hospital, Bhiwani.
5. The prosecution case is that Vikas and Karambir had been arrested in another case and they suffered disclosure statements and they named Dharambir as their accomplice. Dharambir was arrested subsequently. The accused were interrogated and some recoveries were effected. On completion of investigation challan was presented against the appellants and some others. One of the accused namely Bhawani was tried by the Juvenile Justice Board, Bhiwani.
6. Charge for commission of offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 307 read with Section 34 IPC was framed against Vikas and Karambir on 14.09.2004. Bhawani was tried separately by Juvenile Justice Board, Bhiwani. Dharambir could not be arrested. The trial commenced but subsequently, Dharambir was also arrested and was tried accordingly.
7. The record reveals that both the trials were being conducted separately and under the directions of the this Court, the case bearing S.C. No.30/123/2004 was ordered to be tried by the same officer who had taken up case titled State vs. Vikas. It was after June, 2007 when the prosecution had completed its evidence that the cases were ordered to be clubbed together.
8. The prosecution had examined Vikas PW1, he is the only private witness. Besides him, the prosecution had examined fifteen other witnesses who are official witnesses, some had investigated the case or had arrested the accused and had prepared the challan etc. The complainant could not be examined as he had been murdered before he could make a statement in the trial Court.
9. Statement of the accused was recorded and all the accused pleaded false implication and denied making any disclosure statement. Thereafter, accused Vikas absented from the Court. The prosecution moved a
