BALWANT KAUR versus UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH

Citation: [1988] 1 S.C.R. 745 · Decided: 03-11-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
---r·· 
BALWANT KAUR 
A 
v. 
UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH 
NOVEMBER 3, 1987 
[A.P. SEN AND M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, JJ.) 
B 
Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section 114 Ill. (b) and 133-
Accomplice's evidence-Credibility of-Nature and extent of corro-
boration-Necessity for-Accused's conviction-On uncorroborated 
evidence-Effect of. 
1. 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: Section 313-Approver's tes-
C 
timony-To be put to accused in examination-Necessity for. 
The prosecution alleged that the married life of the appellant, who 
·was said to be 151/z years of age, was in a serious dis~rray, that she and 
the non-appealing accused were on terms of illicit intimacy, that she D 
also submitted herself to PW 2 in an extra-marital relation, that on 
13.11.73 she implored the non-appealing accused and PW 2 to free her 
from a cruel husband by doing away with him, that she agreed that she 
would, thereafter live with the non-appealing accused as his wife, that 
the three designed and conspired to do away with the deceased, in 
pursuance of which the appellant persuaded her husband to go to the E 
bus stand at Chandigarh at 9.30 a.m. on 14th November, 1973, where the 
non-appealing accused and PW 2 were waiting for him as pre-arranged, 
and took him to Pinjore by bus, where they consumed liquor together 
and the non-appealing accused purchased Ghotna, that while all the 
three were walking back to Chandigarh and climbed the way side hill 
the non-appealing accused gave blows on the head of the unsuspecting F 
deceased with the Ghotna, while PW 2 pinned him down, that they 
concealed the clothes and body of the deceased in the nearby bushes, 
that both of them returned to Chandigarh by night fall, and the non-
appealing accused informed PW 2 that he, in turn, had informed the 
appellant oftbe death of her husband, that the mother of the deceased, 
PW 19, lodged a complaint on 13.12.73 about her missing son in writing G 
with the Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh, alleging that she 
• 
had learnt that a certain person of the village Labor Khoda with his two 
sons and the Sarpanch with his two othe~ relatives had killed her son, 
the motive being that her son had developed illicit relations with the 
daughter of the person, that after coming to know of her husband's 
death the appellant misled her mother-in-law PW 19, into making a H 
7'15 
A 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1988] I S.C.R. 
report to the police containing false and misleading information in an 
attempt to draw a red-herring across the trial. 
The non-appealing accused was arrested on 3.4. 75. On his infor-
mation Ex. P8, a pair of shoes, purse, 25 pieces of bones including an 
incomplete hnman skull were recoverett. The appellant and PW 2 were 
B 
arrested on 8.5. 75. 
c 
After completing the investigation, charges were brought against 
the appellants and the two accused for conspiracy and murder. PW 2, 
who wa• one of the co-accused, turned approver. 
The trial court on the basis of the approver's testimony as 
corroborated by other evidence held the non-appealing accused and the 
appellant guilty of the offences under sections 302 and 120-B of the 
I.P.C. and sentenced thent to imprisonment for life. The High Court 
dismissed their appeals and confirmed the convictions and sentence. 
D 
In the appeal to this Court, it was urged that the evidence of the 
approver Insofar as the compicity of the appellant was concerned, 
lacked corroboration on material particulars and that no conviction 
could be sustained on such uncorroborated accomplice's testimony. 
I 
.A 
On the question as to: (1) the nature and extent of corroboration 
,._ 
E 
of an accomplice's evidence; and (2) the procedure for the trial of 
offences by a 'child' under the East Punjab Children's Act, 1949, 
HELD: I.I An accomplice, by long legal tradition, is a notori-
._
ously infamous witness, one who being partipes-criminis, purchases his 
immunity by accepting to. accuse others. Section 114, illustration (b) of 
F 
the Evidence Act envisages the presumptive uncreditworthiness of an 
) 
accomplice. But, then section 133 provides that a conviction is not 
_. 
illegal merely because it rests upon an accomplice's uncorroborated 
testimony. (753C-D] 
I.2 In indictments, particularly of serious crimes, counsel of cau-
G 
tion and the rule of prudence enjoin that it is unsafe to rest a conviction 
on the evidence of a guilty partner in a crime without independent 
corroboration on the material particulars. Judi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.