Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, heard a criminal appeal against the conviction of two appellants for the murder of Ramesh Ahire. The appellants, Manohar John Sable and Milind Atmaram Pawar, were railway gangmen who were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court in Sessions Trial No. 129/2004. The case arose from an incident on 6-7-1994 at the rented railway quarter of Lalita, the wife of Ashok Tayade, who was also a gangman. Lalita had an illicit relationship with the deceased, Ramesh Ahire. On the fateful morning, Ramesh had sexual intercourse with Lalita and left her house, after which the appellants entered and demanded sexual favors from Lalita, threatening to expose her infidelity. When Ramesh returned and saw one of the appellants lying with Lalita, he became angry and slapped her. A scuffle ensued, and the appellants and Lalita allegedly pinned down Ramesh, with the appellants pressing his throat, causing his death. Lalita, who participated in the crime, later applied to become an approver. Her statement was recorded, and she was granted pardon and released on bail. Her husband was discharged under Section 169 CrPC. The prosecution case rested primarily on the testimony of Lalita (PW-2), the approver, along with some medical and circumstantial evidence. The trial court convicted the appellants, relying heavily on the approver's testimony, and held that it was sufficient and corroborated by medical evidence. On appeal, the appellants' counsel argued that the approver's evidence was not corroborated in material particulars and that her cross-examination revealed significant admissions that contradicted the prosecution story. Specifically, Lalita admitted that Ramesh abused her and slapped her, that she caught his hair, and that he fell on the cot and became speechless. She further stated that she requested the appellants to help dispose of the body, but they refused, and hence she named them out of vengeance. The State contended that her evidence was corroborated by the postmortem report (which showed throttling as the cause of death) and witnesses Fakira and Rajaram, and that the trial court's conviction was proper. The High Court, after examining the evidence and the law on accomplice testimony, found that the conviction could not be sustained. The court observed that under Sections 114(b) and 133 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, though a conviction can legally be based on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, it is a rule of prudence that such testimony must be corroborated in material particulars. The court referred to the Supreme Court decision in Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar, AIR 1994 SC 2420, which emphasized the need for corroboration and the combined reading of the two provisions. The High Court noted that the trial court had not properly considered the cross-examination of the approver, where she gave admissions that undermined the prosecution case. The court found that her evidence was not corroborated in material aspects and that the trial court had erroneously placed reliance on it. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and life sentences, and acquitted both appellants.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Evidence - Accomplice Testimony - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Sections 114(b) and 133 - Conviction based on uncorroborated testimony of an approver is contrary to the rule of prudence; corroboration in material particulars is necessary - The appellants were convicted for murder solely on the evidence of the approver who had participated in the crime; the approver's cross-examination revealed admissions that weakened the prosecution case and showed lack of corroboration; the High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellants, holding that the trial court erred in relying on her uncorroborated testimony - Held that the conviction is unsafe and must be set aside (Paras 6-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC can be sustained solely on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice/approver?
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted both appellants. The court held that the approver's testimony was not corroborated in material particulars and it was unsafe to rely on it as the sole basis for conviction.
Law Points
- accomplice evidence requires corroboration
- conviction cannot be based on uncorroborated testimony of approver as per rule of prudence
- Sections 114(b) and 133 Evidence Act
- approver's cross-examination must be considered
