SITARAM SAO@MUNGERI versus STATE OF JHARKHAND

Citation: [2007] 11 S.C.R. 997 · Decided: 12-11-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

" 
SITARAM SAO@MUNGERI 
v. 
STATE OF JHARKHAND 
NOVEMBER 12, 2007 
[DR.ARIJITPASAYATANDLOKESHWAR 
SINGH PANT A, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Penal Code, 1860-ss. 364, 396and120 B-Abduction, dacoity 
and murder-Recovery of looted money from the possession of few C 
accused-One accused declared approver-Trial Court Convicting the 
accused on the basis of Statement of the approver-On appeal, High 
Court remanding the case for fresh commit al since the trial was based 
on statement of approver not recorded as per procedure laid down ul 
s 306 Cr.P.C.-Fresh Committal after recording statement of the D 
approver-Conviction after fresh trial, on the basis of the statement 
of approver-Confirmed by High Court-On appeal, held: Conviction 
justified-Evidence of approver is fully corroborated and thus 
reliable-There is no illegality in procedure adopted for recording his 
statement after remand of the case-Code of Criminal Procedure, E 
1973-s. 306. 
Evidence Act, 1872-ss. 133 and 114 illustration (b)-Approver-
Statement of-Reliability on-Corroboration-NPed for-Held: 
Necessity of corroboration of statement of approver is a matter of 
prudence, except when it is safe to dispense with such corroboration- F 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-s. 306. 
Appellants-accused with others was charged for committing 
dacoity and murder of a lady. Prosecution case was thatthe deceased 
was coming in her car, with some amount of money, driven by her G 
driver (accused). When she did not return home, her husband (PW 
1) lodged a complaint against the driver-accused. Dead-body of he 
deceased was found, car was found elsewhere in abandoned condition 
by the Police. After arrest of driver-accused, part oflooted money 
997 
H 
~ 
998 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 11 S.C.R. 
' 
.f-
.. 
A was recovered from his house. He also disclosed the names of his 
associates. Pursuant whereto other accused were arrested. Part of 
the looted money was recovered also from the house of the other 
accused. Still another accused confessed his guilt and expressed his 
desire to give his statement with regard to the occurrence. His 
B statement was recorded u/s 306 Cr.P .C. and was granted person as 
~ 
approver. After trial appellant alongwith other accused was 
.... 
convicted. In the appeals, High Court noticed that examination of 
the approver u/s 306 Cr. P.C. was not in the presence of the other 
accused and he was also not cross-examined. Therefore, setting 
c aside the judgment of trial Court, it remanded the case for fresh 
committal proceedings. Magistrate was directed to examine the 
approver (PW-6) Magistrate after examining the approver, as per 
the procedure, committed the case for trial. Trial court convicted the 
accused u/ss 364, 396 and 120 BIPC. High Court upheld the 
D conviction. Hence the present appeals. 
,.i_ 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
~ 
HELD: 1.1. Section 133 of the Evidence Act expressly provides 
that an accomplice is a competent witness and the conviction is not 
E illegal merely because it proceeds on an uncorroborated testimony 
of an accomplice. This section renders admissible such 
uncorroborated testimony. But this Section has to be read along with 
Section 114, illustration (b). The latter section empowers the Court 
to presume the existence of certain facts and the illustration 
F elucidates what the Court may presume and make clear by means 
of examples as to what facts the Court shall have regard in 
:r 
considering whether or not maxims illustrated apply to a given case. 
Illustration (b) in express terms says that accomplice is unworthy 
of credit unless he is corroborated in material particulars. The 
G Statute permits the conviction of an accused on the basis of 
uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice but the rule of prudence 
• 
; 
embodied in illustration (b) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act strikes 
y 
a note of warning cautioning the Court that an accomplice does not 
generally deserve to be believed unless corroborated in material 
H 
particulars. Thus, the rule is that the necessity of corroboration is a 
' 
-· }-
SITARAMSAO@MUNGERiv. STATE 
999 
matter of prudence except when it is safe to dispense with such A 
corroboration must be clearly present in the mind of the Judge. 
[Para 15] (1006-D, E, F, G] 
Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar, AIR (1994) SC 2420, 
relied on. 
a 
Bhubon Sahu v. The King, AIR (1949) PC 257, referred to. 
1.2. Although Section 114 illustration (b) provides that the Court 
may presume that 

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