Accomplice evidence and corroboration: approver testimony upheld where material particulars and Section 306 procedure were duly complied with.

An accomplice is a competent witness under Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and a conviction is not illegal merely because it rests on approver evidence; however, Section 114(b) requires corroboration in material particulars. Here, the approver's account was supported by medical evidence, injuries on the deceased, recovery of stolen money, and related circumstances linking the accused to the offence, so the conviction was sustained. On the Section 306 CrPC issue, the earlier procedural defect concerning examination of the approver after pardon was cured on remand when the approver was examined in the accused's presence and cross-examined before commitment, so the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the conviction could be sustained on the testimony of an approver without independent direct eyewitness evidence, applying the law on accomplice evidence and corroboration; (ii) Whether the procedure under Section 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was vitiated for want of proper grant of pardon and compliance with the requirements for examining the approver.

Issue (i): Whether the conviction could be sustained on the testimony of an approver without independent direct eyewitness evidence, applying the law on accomplice evidence and corroboration.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, makes an accomplice a competent witness and does not render a conviction illegal merely because it rests on uncorroborated accomplice testimony. At the same time, Section 114(b) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, embodies the prudential rule that an accomplice is ordinarily unworthy of credit unless corroborated in material particulars. The evidence was assessed on that settled principle, and the approver's account was found to be supported by surrounding circumstances and material particulars, including medical evidence, injuries on the deceased, the recovery of stolen money, and other connected facts linking the accused to the occurrence.

Conclusion: The conviction was rightly sustained on the approver's testimony, as it stood sufficiently corroborated in material particulars, and the challenge on this ground failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the procedure under Section 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was vitiated for want of proper grant of pardon and compliance with the requirements for examining the approver.

Analysis: The earlier defect noticed in the proceedings related only to the stage after pardon, namely examination of the approver in the presence of the accused and opportunity for cross-examination. That defect was cured on remand when the approver was examined in the presence of the accused and cross-examined before commitment. The record showed compliance with the procedural mandate of Section 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and no illegality survived in the post-remand proceedings.

Conclusion: The challenge based on alleged non-compliance with Section 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The convictions were upheld and the appellants were not entitled to any relief, as both the evidentiary and procedural challenges were found to be without merit.

---