A
SHERA SINGH
v.
THE STATE OF PUNJAB
AUGUST 28, 1996
B
[G.N. RAY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.)
Penal Code, 1860 :
S. 302 r/w 34-Murde1~77iree accused convicted and sentenced to
C imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500-0n appeal High Court acquitting
two co-accused and upholding the conviction of the appellant-171e convic-
tion was based 011 the evidence of the approver and COIToborated by the
evidence of another witness-On appeal held : Deposition of approver re-
quired to be con-oborated in matelial pa1ticulars---Evidence of witness that
the deceased was last seen in the company of appellallt cannot be regarded
D as co1Toboration of the approver's evidenc&-Conviction and sentence passed
against the appellant set aside.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
328of1985.
E
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.1.84 of the Punjab &
F
Haryana High Court in Crl.A. No. 560-DB of 1983.
R.C. Kohli for the Appellant.
Mrs. Arnita Gupta for R.S. Suri for the Respondent.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Three accused, including the appellant Shera Singh, were tried for
an offence of murder before the learned Session Judge, Ferozepur in
Sessions Trial No. 41 of 1983. By the Judgment dated 29th July, 1983 the
G learned Sessions Judge convicted all the three accused under Section 302
read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to suffer
imprisonment for life and to day a a fine of Rs. 500 or in default to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for six months. The said there convicted accused,
including t.he appellants, preferred appeal before the Punjab and Haryana
H High Court being Criminal Appeal No. 560-DB 1983. By the impugned
304
-j
SHERASINGHv. STATE
305
judgment dated 17th July, 1984, the High Court acquitted the two co-ac-
A
cused Lachman Singh and Balbir Singh, but the conviction of the appellant
for an offence of murder under Section 302 IPC has been upheld by the
High Court. It may be stated that in this case there is no direct evidence
about the complicity of any of the accused in committing the murder of
one Sucha Singh at about 9.00 P.M. on 28th July, 1982 excepting the
evidence of the approver, being P.W. 13. As per illustration (b) under
Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, an accomplice is unworthy
of credit, unless he is corroborated in material particulars. In the instant
case, the only evidence other than the deposition of the said approver, is
the deposition of PW.16, the brother of the deceased who only stated that
the deceased was seen by the said brother near the canal bridge of village
Midha at about 9.00 P.M. on 28th July, 1982 and he had gone to the western
side alongwith the appellant Shera Singh. As the names of other two
accused were not mentioned by PW. 16, the High Court gave them the
benefit of doubt and acquitted them but since the name of the appellant
was mentioned by PW 16 as the person with whom the deceased was last
seen together, the conviction against the appellant has been upheld by the
High Court. The High Court has held that as the name of the appellant
was mentioned by PW 16 as the person with whom the deceased was last
seen, the evidence of PW 16 gets corroboration from the deposition of the
B
c
D'
approver PW 13.
E
In our view, such finding of the Hig\1 Court is not justified. Simply
on the basis of evidence of PW 16 that the deceased was last seen in the
company of the appellant, the :ippellant is not liable to be convicted for
the offence of murder. The deposition of an approver is required to be
corroborated in material particulars. The circumstance about which PW 16
deposed cannot be regarded such a corroboration. So, the conviction of
F
the appellant by relying upon the evidence of PW 13 was not justified. We,
therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence
passed against the appellant. The appellant has been released on bail
during the pendency of this appeal by this Court. His bail bonds stai.i.d G
discharge.
G.N.
Appeal allowed.
Lex