Approver’s Evidence Can Sustain Conviction If It Is Credible and Corroborated; Every Detail Need Not Be Independently Proved

Held: The Supreme Court held that an approver is a competent witness under Section 133 of the Evidence Act, and a conviction is not illegal merely because it is based on approver evidence. However, as a rule of prudence flowing from Illustration (b) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act, courts ordinarily look for corroboration in material particulars. Such corroboration may be direct or circumstantial and need not independently confirm every material circumstance. What is required is that the corroboration should make the approver’s version credible and should connect the accused with the crime. The Court further held that an approver’s testimony is not to be discarded merely because he did not play the same role as the other accused, so long as his evidence is not wholly exculpatory and shows his participation in the crime.

Summary: The case arose from two murders committed in 1984 after a truck carrying a driver, Arun Kumar, and cleaner, Jasbir, was hired and then stolen. Two dead bodies were recovered under different police station jurisdictions, leading to separate FIRs and two sessions cases. The prosecution case was that the accused conspired to steal the truck and killed the driver and cleaner in furtherance of that plan. The main prosecution evidence was the testimony of Ashok Kumar, an accused who became an approver. The appellant argued that the approver’s testimony was self-exculpatory, insufficiently corroborated, and could not prove conspiracy to commit murder, particularly when the charge framing had irregularities. The Supreme Court rejected these submissions. It found that the approver admitted his own participation, including holding the legs of one deceased and being part of the plan to steal the truck, and therefore his evidence was not wholly exculpatory. The Court also found material corroboration from independent circumstances, including ownership and recovery of the stolen truck, identification of the bodies, medical evidence of homicidal death, recovery of articles, and details matching the approver’s narration.

Decision: The Supreme Court maintained the conviction of the appellant. It held that the approver’s testimony was reliable, creditworthy and materially corroborated, and that any defect or ambiguity in the charge did not cause prejudice because the appellant was aware of the case against him and faced trial accordingly. However, considering that the incident was of 1984, the appellant had already undergone more than 18 years of imprisonment, and the co-convicts had received remission, the Court modified the sentence to the period already undergone. The appeals were partly allowed only to that extent, and the appellant was directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.