Accomplice testimony needs material corroboration; unsupported evidence and defective Section 313 examination can justify benefit of doubt.

An accomplice or approver's testimony may legally sustain a conviction under Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, but the rule of prudence under Section 114 Illustration (b) requires independent corroboration in material particulars connecting the accused to the offence. Corroboration must come from an independent source and do more than merely bolster the approver's credibility. Where incriminating circumstances are not properly put to the accused under Section 313 CrPC and the remaining evidence does not sufficiently link the accused to the conspiracy, the evidence is unsafe and benefit of doubt follows.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant's conviction could be sustained on the approver's testimony in the absence of adequate independent corroboration on material particulars.

Analysis: Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 makes a conviction legally permissible even on uncorroborated accomplice evidence, but Section 114 Illustration (b) recognises the accomplice as an inherently unsafe witness and the rule of practice requires independent evidence that not only confirms the commission of the offence but also connects the accused with it in material particulars. The corroboration must come from an independent source and must do more than merely support the credibility of the approver. In the present case, some of the incriminating circumstances relied upon against the appellant were not properly put to her in examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the remaining evidence did not provide the necessary reassurance linking her to the conspiracy with sufficient certainty.

Conclusion: The approver's evidence against the appellant was not sufficiently corroborated in material particulars, and the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt.

---