LexVENKATESHA versus STATE OF KARNATAKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 2 S.C.R. 613 VEN KAT ES HA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA (Criminal Appeal No. 135 of 2005) JANUARY 8, 2013 [T.S. THAKUR AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA,· JJ.) A B Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302, 307, 427 rlw s. 34 - Explosive Substances Act, 1908 - s. 3 rlw s. 34 /PC - Prosecution under - Bomb planted by A3 at the instruction C of A1 and A2 at the shop ofPW-14 with intention to kill him - Resulted in death and injuries to the employees of PW14 .:... A3 was granted pardon and examined as approver - Conviction of A 1 and A2 by courts below - Appeal by A2 - Held: Prosecution case is supported by the eye-witnesses, o injured witnesses and the ~/)prover - Motive established - Conviction justified. Evidence Act, 18'?2 - s. 133 - Evidence of accomplice - Evidentiary value - A conviction cannot be held illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated E testimony of a~ accomplice - But it is established rule of practice that it is unsafe to record a conviction on the testimony of an approver unless the same is co"oborated in material particulars by some untainted and credible evidence - In the instant case, the evidence of approver was duly com:iborated F in the form of oral depositions as also forensic evidence. The appellant-accused No.2, along with accused No. 1, was prosecuted for offences punishable ulss. 302, 307, 427 r/w s. 34 IPC and s. 3 of the Explosive Substances G Act, 1908 rlw · s. 34 IPC. As per the prosecution, in furtherance of a common intention to kill PW-14, A-3, at the instruction of A-1 and A-2, kept a tape recorder loaded with an explosive substance (bomb) at the shop owned 613 ' 614 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 2 S.C.R. A by PW-14. The explosion of the tape recorder resulted in death of one employee of PW-14 and injuries to two other employees ie. PW-1 and PW-7. The motive for killing PW- 14 was that A-1 carried the impression that his domestic troubles were because of interference of PW-14. A-1 had B also threatened PW-14 to kill him. Appellant-A-2 had joined him in extending that threat. A-3 was granted pardon u/s. 306 Cr.P.C. and was treated as an approver and accordingly examined as PW-2.Trial court found A1 and A2 guilty and convicted them for the alleged C offences. The trial court order was upheld by the High Court. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. There is no perversity or miscarriage of o justice arising out of appreciation of evidence by the trial court or the High Court to warrant interference. There is nothing irrational or perverse in the findings recorded by the trial Court and the High Court on the question of motive for the commission of offence, which was E intended to target PW-14 but claimed the life of the deceased who was innocent and an un-intended victim of the crime. The depositions of PW-4, PW-8, PW-10, PW- 11, the Approver- PW-2 and the injured witnesses, all support the prosecution case. [Paras 13 and 28] [621-B- F D; 630-C-D] 2.1 Though s. 133 of the Evidence Act, makes an accomplice a competent witness against the accused person and declares that a conviction shall not be illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated G testimony of an accomplice, the established rule of practice is that it is unsafe to record a conviction on the testimony of an approver unless the same is corroborated in material particulars by some untainted and credible evidence. This practice is treated as a rule H of law. Courts, therefore, not only approach the evidence VENKATESHA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 615 of an approver with caution, but insist on corroboration A of his version before resting a verdict of guilt against the accused, on the basis of such a deposition. The juristic basis for that requirement is the fact that the approver is by his own admission a criminal, which by itself makes him unworthy of an implicit reliance by the Court, unless s it is satisfied about the truthfulness of his story by evidence that is independent and supportive of the version given by him. That the approver's testimony needs corroboration cannot, therefore, be doubted as a proposition of law. [Para 15) [621 ·G-H; 622-A·C] c 2.2 Regarding the question of corroboration of the deposition of the approver in the instant case, the courts below concurrently held that the same was available in abundance in the form of the depositions of PW-1, PW- 3, PW-4, PW-7, PW-9, PW-21 and PW-27. The High Court D has, upon a careful an
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.