Corroborated approver testimony can sustain conviction, and co-accused acquittal does not create issue estoppel here.

An approver's testimony can sustain a murder conviction when it is found trustworthy and materially corroborated by independent evidence connecting the accused to the crime; here, corroboration of the deceased's travel with the appellant, the appellant's detention after the journey, the cycle booking, and later acid burns made the evidence reliable. Issue estoppel did not arise from a co-accused's acquittal in a separate trial because that finding concerned a different accused and did not finally determine any fact in the appellant's favour. The conviction was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the approver's testimony, supported by independent evidence, was sufficient to sustain the conviction for murder. (ii) Whether the acquittal of a co-accused in a separate trial attracted issue estoppel and barred conviction of the appellant.

Issue (i): Whether the approver's testimony, supported by independent evidence, was sufficient to sustain the conviction for murder.

Analysis: The approver's account of the appellant's presence with the deceased in the train and the manner in which the assault was carried out was found natural and detailed. Material parts of that account were independently corroborated by evidence showing the deceased's travel with the appellant, the appellant's detention at Bhiwani after the train journey, the booking of the cycle at Sasni, and the appellant's later report of acid burns. The corroboration bridged the distance between the crime and the appellant and supplied the assurance required for acting on accomplice evidence.

Conclusion: The approver's evidence was reliable and sufficiently corroborated, and the conviction was rightly sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether the acquittal of a co-accused in a separate trial attracted issue estoppel and barred conviction of the appellant.

Analysis: Issue estoppel applies only where the same parties are involved and the same fact in issue has been finally determined in the earlier proceeding. The co-accused's acquittal rested on the absence of material corroboration against him and did not determine any issue in favour of the appellant. The earlier finding therefore did not preclude the State from proving the appellant's guilt on the evidence available against him.

Conclusion: Issue estoppel did not apply and did not bar the appellant's conviction.

Final Conclusion: The conviction was upheld because the approver's evidence was adequately corroborated and the acquittal of the co-accused created no estoppel against the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: An accomplice or approver's testimony may form the basis of conviction when it is found trustworthy and is materially corroborated by independent evidence connecting the accused with the crime, and issue estoppel applies only when the same issue between the same parties has already been finally decided.

---