Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder by Poisoning Case Where Approver Evidence Met Reliability and Corroboration Tests. Conviction Under Sections 302, 109, 115 IPC Affirmed as Approver's Testimony Was Reliable and Sufficiently Corroborated by Poison Register and Witnesses Despite Rejection of Uncorroborated Pistol Episode.

Criminal appeal by special leave against conviction and sentence for murder by poisoning under the Indian Penal Code.

Appellant sought setting aside of conviction and sentence of life imprisonment awarded by the lower courts.

Conviction was based primarily on approver's evidence; appellant contended that legal principles for appreciation of approver's evidence were misapplied.

Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon convicted the appellant under Section 302 read with Sections 109 and 115 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The Punjab High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction.

Whether the courts below correctly applied the double test for approver's evidence as laid down in Sarwan Singh v. State of Rajasthan. Whether the approver's evidence was reliable and sufficiently corroborated on material particulars. Whether rejection of a part of approver's testimony (pistol episode) rendered the approver unreliable for the rest of his evidence.

Appellant contended that the Sessions Judge and High Court did not apply the correct principles of law for appreciation of evidence of an approver; the double test from Sarwan Singh's case was not correctly applied. Appellant argued that there was no corroboration for the claim that the appellant mixed arsenic in the khoa or that the approver handed over the sweets to Devi Ram's wife. The State supported the conviction, maintaining that the approver's evidence was reliable and sufficiently corroborated by documentary and oral evidence, including the poison register and witnesses to purchase and bus journey.

The evidence of an approver must satisfy two tests: first, the approver must be a reliable witness, a test common to all witnesses, requiring no inherent improbability and no finding of false evidence; second, the approver's evidence must receive sufficient corroboration on material particulars. A court may reject a part of the approver's evidence for want of corroboration or lack of conviction without holding the witness unreliable, as this is consistent with the principle of valuing approver evidence with caution. Corroboration may be provided by documentary evidence and reliable witnesses. Rejection of one uncorroborated episode does not necessarily impugn the credibility of the approver for the remaining corroborated evidence.

The first test laid down in Sarwan Singh’s case is that the approver’s evidence must show that he is a reliable witness, and that is a test which is common to all witnesses. The second test which thereafter still remains to be applied in the case of an approver, and which is not always necessary when judging the evidence of other witnesses, is that his evidence must receive sufficient corroboration. The fact that the Court thus did not accept the evidence of the approver for this part of the story does not mean that the Court held that the approver was an unreliable or untruthful witness.

The appellant was prosecuted and tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, who convicted him under Section 302 read with Sections 109 and 115 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The appellant appealed to the Punjab High Court (Criminal Appeal No. 85 of 1963), which dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction. The appellant then filed an appeal by special leave before the Supreme Court of India (Criminal Appeal No. 177 of 1964). The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction.

• Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section 133, Section 114 illustration (b)
• Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 302, Section 109, Section 115
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898: Section 342