Holding

A conviction cannot rest on an accomplice’s testimony unless it is corroborated by independent evidence that directly connects the accused to the crime.

Summary

The case involved the murder of Smt. Dhaka, a widow, for which five persons were tried. One accused, Mam Chand, turned approver, and the prosecution relied solely on his testimony and on the recovery of articles, with no direct evidence linking the accused to the crime. The trial court convicted all accused, and the High Court upheld the convictions of three, discarding the identification testimony of two witnesses and not examining the son of the deceased who had identified articles in a police parade. The Supreme Court held that an accomplice’s testimony must be corroborated by independent evidence that directly connects the accused to the offence, and that the identification evidence was inadmissible as it was hearsay and not subject to cross‑examination. Consequently, the Court found no valid corroboration and set aside the convictions, ordering the appellants’ release.

Issues considered

The conviction based solely on the approver's testimony without independent corroboration.
Whether identification of recovered articles by a witness not examined at trial can be used as corroborative evidence.
Whether the recovery of articles, without identification linking them to the crime, is relevant.
Whether the trial court erred in discarding the testimony of two witnesses who identified articles.

Legislation cited

Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 114(6), s. 133
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 34

Subjects

accomplice testimonyapprovercorroborationidentification evidencehearsayIndian Evidence Actmurderconvictionacquittal

Judgment

CHANDAN & OM PRAKASH A
-1 v.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN

... • JANUARY 12, 1988

[G.L. OZA AND L.M. SHARMA, JJ.] B

Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Ss. 114(6) and 133-Evidence of
t accomplice-Corroboration by independent evidence-Necessity for.
f. Five persons were tried for the murder of a widow, out of which
one turned approver. There was no direct evidence in the case. The only c
''-f'- evidence was the evidence of the approver and the other evidence
regarding recovery of articles by three witnesses.
'-(
The trial court discarded the testimony of two witnesses who had
identified some articles. The third witness, the son of the deceased and
who had identified the articles was not examined at the trial. The court, D
however, convicted all the accused persons under s. 302 read with s. 34
IPC.
"'
The High Court maintained the conviction of three persons on the
finding that the evidence of identification was sufficient to corroborate
the testimony of the approver. E
y
In the appeals by special leave by two of the accused, it was
contended for the State that although the son of the deceased had not
• ;., been examined at the trial, he had identified articles at the test identifi·
cation and, therefore, that evidence was sufficient to corroborate the
testimony of the accomplice. F
~' Allowing the appeais,

" HELD: It is established as a rule of prudence that the testimony
of an accomplice if it is thought reliable. as a whole conviction could only
be based if it is corroborated by independent evidence either direct or G
circnmstantial connecting the accused with the crime. I603A -BI

Haroon Haji Abdulla v. State of Maharashtra, [1968] 2 SCR 641
and RavinderSingh v. State of Haryana, (1975] 3 SCR 453, referred to.

In the Instant case, the evidence of the son of the deceased could H

599
600 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19881 2 S.C.R.

A not be looked into because (i) what he identified and stated to the
Magistrate, who conducted the identification parade, was only a
hearsay evidence and that evidence could only be used to corroborate
his testimony if he was examined at the trial, and (ii) what he stated to
the Magistrate was not subjected to cross-examination and was at the
back of the accused. Further, there is nothing about identification or
B anything to connect the articles with the crime and in such a situation
the evidence of recovery is not at all relevant as it is not connected with
the crime. It could not, therefore, be used as evidence against the
accused. [604C-DJ

The only evidence against the accused was that of the appr-
-
C over. He has claimed to be a spectator at every moment but has
not participated at any stage. Apart from it, the initial story ap-
pears also to be absolutely unnatural, as according to him he did
not know anyone of the accused persons but a month before the inci-
dent they took him into confidence and told him to join them. The
evidence of the witnesses as a whole does not appear to be natural
D version and is not such which inspires confidence. Moreover, there
was no corroboration at all from another independent circumstance
or source of evidence. The conviction of the appellant, therefore,
could not be maintained. [604F-H]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal "'(
E N os. 106-107 of 1986.
WITH
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 166-67/1986).
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.9.1985 of the High Court ·
of Rajasthan in D.B. Appeal No. 126/77 and Criminal Appeal Nos. 98°"'--i
F
and 99 of 1977. 1
R.L. Kohli, Uma Dutt and R.C. Kohli for the Appellant.

B.D. Sharma and M.I. Khan Additional Advocate General for
the Respondent.
G
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

OZA, J. These two appeals arise out of the conviction of these
two appellants alongwith one another under Section 302 read with
Section 34 and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 100
H each in Sessions Case No. 39/75 by Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu dated
CHANDAN v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [OZA, J.] 601

29th January 1977. Alongwith these two appellants Chandan and Orn A
Prakash one Babula! son of Onkar Mai was also convicted but we have
no appeal before us on behalf of Babula!.

The prosecution case was that Smt. Dhaka widow of Shri Hanu-
man Prasad and mother of Shri Gyarsi Lal was living all alone in her
house (Haveli) at Ward No. 1, Khetadi. In the morning of 23rd B
t August, 1975 a person engaged for grazing the goats in jungle went to
Smt. Dhaka's house for taking her goats for grazing and called Smt.
'{
Dhaka but he did not get any response. P.W. 2 Smt. Banarsi who was
... living in the vicinity came on the spot and alongwith the Goatmen went
'( inside the Haveli. They found goods scattered here and there and even

., when they loudly called Smt. Dhaka they did not hear any reply. P.W.
1 Matadeen who was feeding pigeons nearby was informed by Smt.
Banarsi that Sint. Dhaka normally used to get up early but it appears
c
that she had not woken up by that time and therefore expressed
surprise. On this Matadeen went inside the house, reached the upper
floor and found all the rooms opened and plenty of goods of Smt.
.._ Dhaka lying scattered. There he saw Smt. Dhaka lying on a cot and n
found that she was wounded and bleeding at number of places. Shri
Matadeen, then went to the Police Station, Khetadi and submitted his
report Ex. P. I. The Station House Officer Surindra Singh reached the
spot, prepared a memo and carried out the investigation. On 3rd
September, 1975 one Mam Chand was arrested as an accused.
'r Another accused Babula! was arrested on 5th September and the E
acquitted accused Laxmikant was arrested on 7th September and the
·"" two appellants in this appeal Orn Prakash and Chandan were arrested
"'
f
on llth September, 1975. Mam Chand later was granted pardon and
has been examined as an approver in this case. On trial the learned
~._Sessions Judge convicted all the accused persons and on appeal the
~ High Court acquitted the accused Laxmikant but maintained the conv- F
iction against the three and aggrieved by the judgment of the High
Court the present appeal on special leave has been filed before us by
the two appellants mentioned above.

It is not in dispute that there is no direct evidence in this case.
The only evidence is the evidence of the approver Mam Cband and G
other evidence regarding recovery of articles. Learned counsel for the
appellant contended that certain articles were recovered at the inst-
ance of Orn Prakash and were put up for test identification and accord-
ing to the evidence of the test identification these articles that were put
up for identification, four witnesses were supposed to identify. Four
witnesses appeared at test identification but three appeared in the H
602 SUPREME COURT REPORTS I1988) 2 S.C.R.

A Court at trial. Out of these four witnesses, the first witness did not
identify any article. The two witnesses Rameshwar and Phool Chand,
P. Ws 13 and 14 did identify some articles. Their evidence after consid-
eration has been rejected by the trial court and the other witness who
identified the articles was Gyarsi Lal who happens to be the son of
B deceased, for the reasons best known, has not been examined at the
trial at all and it was therefore contended by the learned counsel that
so far as the recovery and identification of articles are concerned no
article recovered has been identified to be that of the deceased and
therefore this evidence of recovery in absence of identification is not at
all relevant for the prosecution. He therefore contended that as it is
settled law that accomplice's evidence if it inspires confidence could be
c used to convict the accused person only if there is independent corrob-
oration which could connect the accused with the crime and it was
contended that this evidence of recovery and identification was sup-
posed to be the evidence connecting the accused with the crime and
corroborating the testimony of the approver; but the learned Judges of
the High Court did not consider this aspect of the matter that the two
0
witnesses who had identified some articles their testimony has been
discarded by the trial court and the High Court has not come to the
conclusion that the trial court was not right in rejecting their testimony
but superficially held that the evidence of identification is sufficient to
corroborate the testimony of the approver. It was also contended that
E even the reading of the testimony of the approver shows that he has
tried to keep himself away and the manner in which he has described
the whole incident and the way in which he was taken into confidence
by the other accused persons make his testimony unnatural and there-
fore could not be accepted. Learned counsel also placed reliance on
.
certain decisions of this Court where the rule of prudence about the
testimony of the accomplice has been repeatedly stated.
F
Learned counsel appearing for the State of Rajasthan admitted
that so far as the identification evidence is concerned, the most
important witness Gyarsi Lal has not been examined at the trial and
the other two who were examined, their testimony has been rejected
but he attempted to contend that although Gyarsi Lal has not been
G examined in evidence at the trial but in test identification he had
identified articles and therefore that evidence is sufficient to corrobo-
rate the testimony of the accomplice. He however did not challenge
the proposition that the conviction could not be maintained on the sole
testimony of the accomplice unless it is corroborated by some indepen-
H dent evidence connecting the accused with the crime.
CHANDAN v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN \OZA, J.\ 603

So far as the question about the conviction based on the A
testimony of the accomplice is concerned the law is settled and it is
established as a rule of prudence that the testimony of accomplice if it
is thought reliable as a whole conviction could only be based if it is
corroborated by independent evidence either direct or circumstantial
connecting the accused with the crime. In Haroon Haji Abdulla v. B
State of Maharashtra, [1968] 2 SCR 641 it was observed as under:

"An accomplice is a competent witness and his evidence
could be accepted and a conviction based on it if there is
---,...,, nothing significant to reject it as false. But the rule of
prudence, ingrained in the consideration of accomplice evi-
dence, requires independent corroborative evidence first of C
the offence and next connecting the accused against whoni
the accomplice evidence is used, with the crime".

Similarly in Ravinder Singh v. State of Haryana, [ 1975] 3 SCR 453 it
was observed as under:
D
"An approver is a most unworthy friend, if at all, and he.
having bargained for his immunity, must prove his worthi-
ness for credibility in court. This test is fulfilled, firstly, if
the story he relates involves him in the crime and appears
intrinsically to be a natural and probable catalogue of
E
events that had taken place. The story if given of minute

- details according with reality is likely to save it from being
rejected brevi inanu. Secondly, once that hurdle is crossed,
the story given by an approver so far as the accused.on trial
is concerned, must implicate him in such a manner as to
give rise to a conclusion of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
F
In a rare case taking into consideration all the factors,
circumstances and situations governing a particular case,
conviction based on the uncorroborated evidence of an
approver confidently held to be true and reliable by the
court may be permissible. Ordinarily, however, an approv-
er's statement has to be corroborated in material particu- G
lars bridging closely the distance between the crime and the
criminal. Certain clinching features of involvement dis-
closed by an approver appertaining directly to an accused,
if reliable, by the touchstone of other independent credible
evidence, would give the needed assurance for acceptance
of his testimony on which a conviction may be based." H
604 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 2 S.C.R.
:,.-.
A In this decision the first test indicated is that if the story given out by
the accomplice appears intrinsically to be natural and probable, then
alone that evidence could be of some value and then it is further l< -
observed that ordinarily an approver's statement has to be corrobora-
ted. In this view of the settled legal position which was not disputed
before us, it was contended that the evidence about recovery is of no
B consequence as there is no evidence of identification but as it was
contended by the learned counsel for the respondent State that Gyarsi -(
Lal who is the son of the deceased is not examined at the trial but he '
had identified articles at the identification parade and the learned )
counsel attempted to contend that this evidence could be used as a
piece of corroboration. Unfortunately this evidence could not be
y
looked into because: i) what he identified and stated to the Magistrate
c who conducted the identification parade is only a hearsay evidence as
that evidence could only be used to corroborate his testimony if he was
,.
examined at the trial; and ii) what he stated to the Magistrate at the
time of the test identification parade is net subjected to cross-
examination and was at the back of the accused could not be used as
D evidence against the accused. These are matters so settled and there-
fore it is sufficient to say that this contention is without any substance.
Except this even the learned counsel for the State of Ra jasthan had to
concede that there is nothing about identification or anything to con-
nee! these articles with the crime and in such a situation the evidence
of recovery is not at all relevant as it is not connected with the crime. --(
E
It is not disputed that except this we are left with the only evi-
dence of the approver Mam Chand. His evidence ha~ been read by the
counsel for the parties before us and his evidence clearly indicates that
he has attempted to suggest that he did nothing. Neither he stated that
""
'
-
he participated in looting nor in injuring or attacking the deceased. ·-}
F' Reading through his evidence clearly indicates that he has claimed to
be a spectator at every moment but has not participated at any stage. ~
Apart from it the initial story appears also to be absolutely unnatural
as according to him, he did not know anyone of these accused persons
but a month before the incident they took him into confidence and told
him to join them. After reading the evidence of the witnesses as a
,4
G whole apparently the impression created is that the version does not
appear to be natural version. In this view of the matter, in our opinion,
the testimony is not such which inspires confidence. Apart from it as y
there is no corroboration at all from any other independent circumst-
ance or source of evidence therefore the conviction of the appellants
could not be maintained. It is rather unfortunate that the appeal has
H come up for hearing after a long time and ultimately it is found that
CHANDAN v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN !OZA, J.J 605

·i there is no evidence to sustain the conviction. The appeals are there- A
fore allowed. The sentence and conviction passed against both the
>I accused are set aside. The appellants shall be set at liberty forthwith.

P.S.S. Appeals allowed.
B