Corroborated accomplice testimony can sustain conviction, while delay and subsequent conduct may justify sentence modification.

Conviction based on accomplice evidence was sustained because the tainted testimony was treated with caution and found corroborated on material particulars by independent circumstances, including repeated visits, telephone use, conferences with conspirators and participation in the landings. The appellate court also adjusted sentence on account of the long lapse of time, the appellants' subsequent unblemished conduct and the period already undergone: the custodial term was reduced to imprisonment already served, while the fine was enhanced.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the conviction could be sustained on the basis of accomplice testimony corroborated by independent material particulars; (ii) Whether, in view of the lapse of time and subsequent conduct of the appellants, the substantive sentence required reduction and the fine required enhancement.

Issue (i): Whether the conviction could be sustained on the basis of accomplice testimony corroborated by independent material particulars.

Analysis: The evidence of the tainted witnesses was required to be approached with caution and could be relied upon only if supported by corroboration on material particulars from independent sources. The testimony concerning repeated visits, use of the telephone, conferences with the conspirators and participation in the landings was found to be supported by independent circumstances and by the seizure made on 26-4-1969. The evidence was accepted as credible and sufficiently corroborated.

Conclusion: The conviction was upheld and the finding on guilt remained against the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether, in view of the lapse of time and subsequent conduct of the appellants, the substantive sentence required reduction and the fine required enhancement.

Analysis: The Court took note of the long lapse of time, the appellants' unblemished conduct after the and the fact that they had already undergone about 18 months of imprisonment. In the circumstances, the substantive custodial sentence was considered adequately served, while the monetary penalty was increased to meet the ends of justice.

Conclusion: The substantive sentence was reduced to imprisonment already undergone and the fine was enhanced.

Final Conclusion: The convictions were maintained, but the punishment was modified by reducing the custodial component to the period already undergone and increasing the fine.

Ratio Decidendi: A conviction may rest on accomplice evidence if it is credible and corroborated in material particulars by independent circumstances, and sentence may be adjusted on appellate review having regard to delay and subsequent conduct.

---