Approver testimony needs independent corroboration in murder cases; unproved recoveries and weak identification cannot sustain conviction.

Conviction for murder on approver testimony alone requires independent corroboration of material particulars connecting the accused to the offence; test identification parade statements are not substantive evidence by themselves. Where recovered articles are not reliably proved to belong to the deceased, the identifying witness is not examined, and the accomplice account is unnatural or lacks assurance, the prudential rule against unsafe reliance on uncorroborated accomplice evidence is not satisfied.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants' conviction for murder could be sustained solely on the testimony of the approver in the absence of reliable independent corroboration connecting them with the crime.

Analysis: The conviction rested on the approver's evidence and alleged recovery of articles. The recovered articles were not proved by reliable identification as belonging to the deceased, and the principal witness who had identified articles at the test identification parade was not examined at trial. The remaining identification evidence had been rejected, and what was stated before the Magistrate at the identification parade could not, by itself, operate as substantive evidence against the accused. On the approver's own version, he portrayed himself as a passive spectator and his account was found unnatural and lacking the assurance expected of accomplice evidence. The settled rule of prudence required independent corroboration of material particulars connecting the accused with the offence, which was absent here.

Conclusion: The conviction could not be sustained; the appellants were entitled to acquittal.

---