9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeal against conviction under s. 302, Indian Penal Code, read with s. 34 for murder. Corroboration of approver's testimony. Sufficiency of evidence to convict the appellant. Interpretation of s. 133 of the Evidence Act. Rule of prudence regarding accomplice testimony. Analysis: The case involved an appeal against the conviction of the appellant for murder under s. 302, IPC, read with s. 34. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, along with three others, was involved in the murder of a person due to suspicion of an illicit relationship with the appellant's wife. The trial court convicted the appellant based on the testimony of an approver and corroborative evidence. However, the High Court upheld the conviction primarily based on the approver's testimony and some circumstantial evidence. The crucial issue in this case was the corroboration of the approver's testimony in material particulars and specifically regarding the appellant. The Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of corroboration for each accused individually. The Court found that the evidence presented did not sufficiently corroborate the approver's testimony concerning the appellant's involvement in the murder. The Court highlighted the importance of independent corroboration to connect the appellant to the offense. Furthermore, the Court delved into the interpretation of s. 133 of the Evidence Act, which allows an accomplice to be a competent witness against an accused person. While acknowledging that a conviction based solely on an accomplice's testimony is not illegal, the Court stressed the rule of prudence and the need for corroboration in material particulars. The Court cited previous judgments emphasizing the cautious approach required when relying on accomplice testimony. In light of the lack of substantial corroboration regarding the appellant's involvement in the murder, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and directed the immediate release of the appellant. The judgment underscored the importance of corroborative evidence in cases involving accomplice testimony and reiterated the rule of prudence in evaluating such evidence for convictions.
|
