9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Conviction based on accomplice's testimony and need for corroboration through independent evidence. Analysis: The judgment involves two appeals arising from the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 and their sentencing to life imprisonment and a fine. The prosecution's case revolved around the murder of a woman, with the only evidence being the testimony of an approver, Mam Chand, and evidence related to the recovery of articles. The trial court convicted all accused, but the High Court acquitted one and upheld the conviction against the appellants. The issue at hand was the sufficiency of evidence and the need for corroboration of the accomplice's testimony. The defense argued that the recovery and identification of articles were crucial for connecting the accused with the crime, but the trial court rejected key witnesses' identification testimonies. The defense highlighted the rule that an accomplice's testimony requires independent corroboration to convict the accused. The State admitted the lack of corroboration but attempted to rely on the identification evidence of a key witness who was not examined during the trial. The judgment emphasized the settled legal position that accomplice testimony must be corroborated by independent evidence connecting the accused to the crime. Citing previous cases, the judgment reiterated the importance of natural and probable testimony from an approver and the necessity of corroboration in material particulars. The court found the approver's testimony lacking in credibility and naturalness, with no corroboration from other sources. Ultimately, the court concluded that without sufficient corroboration and with no evidence connecting the accused to the crime other than the approver's testimony, the conviction could not be sustained. The appeals were allowed, and the sentence and conviction against the appellants were set aside, leading to their immediate release. The judgment highlighted the importance of corroboration in cases relying on accomplice testimony and the need for natural and credible evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
|
