Supreme Court Summarises Law On Approver's Testimony, Says Corroboration Not Mandatory For Accomplice's Evidence

The Supreme Court observed that even where an accomplice's testimony is not independently corroborated on material particulars, it may still form the basis of a conviction if the court finds it credible, trustworthy, and reflective of a full and truthful account of the events surrounding the commission of the offence.

“One of the necessary tests is that his (approver) testimony must be inculpatory and not exculpatory. However, if his testimony is not entirely exculpatory and makes a full and complete disclosure of the events qua commission of the crime, which inspires confidence i.e., appears truthful in the context of proven circumstances, his testimony cannot be discarded as one lacking credibility merely because he does not implicate himself to the extent he implicates the other co-accused.”, observed a bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra.

The Court clarified that though Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 renders an uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice to be sufficient to sustain a conviction, however, the same cannot be read in isolation, as illustration (b) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act adds a note of caution that testimony of an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless it is corroborated in material particulars.

Therefore, the Court noted that “as a matter of practice and prudence, the testimony of an approver may be accepted in evidence for recording conviction of an accused person provided it receives corroboration from direct or circumstantial evidence in material particulars.”

The Court summarised the legal principles regarding the necessity of corroboration of an approver's testimony as under:

"(a)It is not an inviolable rule of law that testimony of an approver must be independently corroborated in material particulars before it could form the basis of conviction. The requirement of corroboration is not mandated by law but is a rule of prudence. Therefore, the Court may convict an accused even on an uncorroborated testimony of the approver provided it is satisfied, and record reasons for its satisfaction, that it is safe to rely on such testimony even in the absence of corroboration.

(b)Corroboratory evidence, if required, may be either direct or circumstantial, or both.

(c) However, where corroboration is considered necessary, it must come from independent sources. Ordinarily, the testimony of one approver is not to be used to corroborate the testimony of another approver.

(d)Corroboration, when required, must be such that it renders the testimony of the approver believable in the facts and circumstances of the case. However, it is not the requirement of law that every material circumstance against the accused is independently confirmed."

Background

The case arose from a brutal double murder committed in July 1984. According to the prosecution, a group of five individuals conspired to steal a truck by hiring it under the pretext of transporting goods and subsequently murdering the driver, and the cleaner. The prosecution's case largely rested on the testimony of one of the accused who later turned approver after being granted pardon.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that the approver's evidence was unreliable as it was exculpatory and lacked adequate corroboration. Rejecting the contention, the Court found that the witness had not attempted to absolve himself completely. Rather, his testimony disclosed his own participation in the events leading to the murders, including physically assisting in restraining one of the victims.

The Court also found substantial corroboration of the accomplice testimony from independent evidence, including the recovery and identification of the stolen truck, forensic evidence, identification of the victims, and circumstances matching the approver's narration of events.

“The above-extracts of PW-1's testimony would indicate that his testimony is not entirely exculpatory. It inculpates PW-1 by showing that he participated in the events that ultimately led to the murder… the approver's testimony was corroborated in material particulars. Besides no serious question was put to PW-1 to doubt his presence at the scene of crime. We, therefore, hold that PW-1's testimony was reliable and creditworthy and could form the basis of conviction.”, the Court observed.

Accordingly, the appeal was partly allowed, wherein the conviction was upheld, however, noting that the Appellant had already served 18 years of sentence, the Court in light of Union of India v. V. Sriharan, (2016) 7 SCC 1, granted him a benefit of remission by modifying his life sentence to the sentence already undergone. Accordingly, the appellant was released.

Cause Title: GOPI CHAND @ PAPPU VERSUS STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 609

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. A Sirajudeen, Sr. Adv. Ms. Manjeet Chawla, AOR Ms. Jyoti, Adv. Ms. Shaik Soni Ahamed, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Praneet Pranav, Adv. Mrs.Rajeshwari Shankar, Adv. Mr. Prashant Singh II, Adv. Mr. Annirudh Sharma II, Adv. Ms. Sunanda Shukla, Adv.