Approver evidence requires proved pardon and independent corroboration; unreliable accomplice testimony could not sustain conviction here.

A witness cannot be treated as an approver without proof of a tender of pardon under Section 337 CrPC; absent such proof, the witness remains an accomplice. Accomplice evidence must be assessed with caution and can sustain a conviction only if it is credible and corroborated on material particulars by independent evidence. Here, the footprint evidence was found unreliable because the moulds and shoes were left unsealed and sent for expert comparison after an unexplained delay, weakening its evidentiary value. On that basis, Bahadur Singh's testimony was not sufficiently reliable or corroborated, the conviction could not be sustained, and both accused were acquitted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the statement of Bahadur Singh could be treated as approver evidence, and whether the conviction could be sustained on the basis of his testimony.

Analysis: A tender of pardon is essential before a person can be regarded in law as an approver under Section 337 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the absence of proof of such pardon, the witness remains only an accomplice, whose evidence must be approached with greater caution than that of an established approver. Such evidence must satisfy the Court on two counts: general credibility and corroboration on material particulars from independent sources. The footprint evidence was not found reliable, as the moulds and shoes had remained unsealed and were sent to the expert after an unexplained delay, reducing the evidentiary value of the comparison.

Conclusion: Bahadur Singh was not an approver in law, his testimony was only that of an accomplice, and it was not sufficiently reliable or corroborated to sustain the conviction.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the convictions could not stand, with the result that both accused were acquitted.

Ratio Decidendi: A witness cannot be treated as an approver without a proved tender of pardon, and a conviction cannot rest on accomplice testimony unless it is credible and independently corroborated on material particulars.

---