2007 (11) TMI 600 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Affirms Convictions & Sentences for IPC Offences

Sitaram Sao Versus State of Jharkhand

The Supreme Court upheld the convictions and sentences imposed by the lower courts for offences under Sections 364, 396, and 120B IPC. The Court confirmed ... Whether the conviction for offences punishable under Sections 364 and 396 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 upheld? Issues Involved:1. Legality of the conviction under Sections 364, 396, and 120B IPC.2. Compliance with Section 306 Cr.P.C. regarding the approver's pardon and examination.3. Admissibility and corroboration of the accomplice's testimony under Sections 133 and 114(b) of the Indian Evidence Act.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Conviction under Sections 364, 396, and 120B IPC:The appellants challenged the judgment of the Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court which upheld their conviction for offences under Sections 364 and 396 read with Section 120B IPC. The trial court had sentenced the appellants to life imprisonment for these offences. The High Court dismissed the appeals, finding no substance in the arguments presented.2. Compliance with Section 306 Cr.P.C. Regarding the Approver's Pardon and Examination:The appellants contended that the manner in which Lalit Sanga, the approver, was granted pardon was illegal. They argued that the procedure laid down under Section 306 Cr.P.C. was not followed after the High Court's direction in the first judgment. The High Court had directed the CJM to examine Lalit Sanga as a witness in the presence of the accused and to allow cross-examination. The appellants argued that Lalit Sanga was not granted pardon properly, and his statement did not comply with Section 306 Cr.P.C. requirements.The High Court noted that the order of the CJM was not set aside, and the procedural requirements were complied with as Lalit Sanga was examined and cross-examined in the presence of the accused before the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The Supreme Court found no illegality in the procedure adopted by the CJM after the remand of the case, confirming that there was complete compliance with Section 306 Cr.P.C.3. Admissibility and Corroboration of the Accomplice's Testimony under Sections 133 and 114(b) of the Indian Evidence Act:The appellants argued that the conviction was based solely on the evidence of the accomplice, Lalit Sanga, and that his testimony did not satisfy the requirements of Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act. They contended that his confession was not fully truthful and lacked corroboration.The Supreme Court discussed the legal principles related to the evidence of an accomplice, emphasizing that while Section 133 of the Evidence Act allows for a conviction based on uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, Section 114(b) suggests that such testimony should generally be corroborated in material particulars. The Court highlighted that the rule of prudence requires corroboration unless the accomplice's testimony is found to be credible and cogent.The Court reviewed the evidence provided by Lalit Sanga, noting that his testimony was corroborated by other material evidence, such as the recovery of the stolen money and the injuries found on the victim's body. The Court concluded that there was complete corroboration of Lalit Sanga's evidence, making it reliable and sufficient to support the conviction of the accused.Conclusion:The Supreme Court found that the appeals lacked merit and upheld the convictions and sentences imposed by the lower courts. The Court confirmed that the procedural requirements under Section 306 Cr.P.C. were met, and the accomplice's testimony was adequately corroborated, thus affirming the legality of the conviction under Sections 364, 396, and 120B IPC.