Credibility of approver evidence and voluntariness of confession control when circumstantial proof cannot sustain conviction.

An approver's evidence must first satisfy the ordinary test of credibility before corroboration is considered; where prior statements and trial testimony are materially inconsistent, the evidence is unreliable and cannot sustain a conviction. A confession recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is usable only if it is voluntary, true, and free from police influence; continued custody, a short interval before recording, and missing safeguards undermined its value here. The remaining circumstantial evidence raised suspicion, but once the approver's evidence and confession were rejected, it did not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, so the convictions and sentences could not stand.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the approver's evidence was reliable and sufficiently corroborated to sustain the conviction; (ii) Whether Sarwan Singh's confession was voluntary and true; (iii) Whether the remaining circumstantial evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions.

Issue (i): Whether the approver's evidence was reliable and sufficiently corroborated to sustain the conviction.

Analysis: An approver's evidence must first pass the ordinary test of credibility before the court considers corroboration. Where the approver's earlier statements and trial testimony are materially inconsistent, the evidence cannot be treated as trustworthy. Corroboration of a tainted witness cannot cure a finding that the witness is inherently unreliable.

Conclusion: The approver was found unreliable, and his evidence could not support the conviction.

Issue (ii): Whether Sarwan Singh's confession was voluntary and true.

Analysis: A confession recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 must be free from police influence and made after adequate time for reflection. The circumstances of continued police custody, short interval before recording, and absence of proper safeguards undermined voluntariness. A confession must also be consistent with the prosecution evidence and medical probabilities; material inconsistencies showed it was not trustworthy.

Conclusion: The confession was not accepted as voluntary or true.

Issue (iii): Whether the remaining circumstantial evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions.

Analysis: The surrounding circumstances, including recovery of articles, alleged association in procuring arms, injuries, and conduct after the , created suspicion but did not amount to proof beyond reasonable doubt once the approver's evidence and the confession were excluded. Suspicion, however strong, cannot replace legal proof.

Conclusion: The circumstantial evidence was insufficient to sustain the convictions.

Final Conclusion: The convictions and sentences could not stand because the prosecution evidence failed to establish guilt to the required legal standard.

Ratio Decidendi: An approver's evidence must be found credible before corroboration is considered, and a confession under section 164 is usable only if it is voluntary and true; where both are rejected, suspicion and incomplete circumstantial evidence cannot sustain a conviction.

---