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." What are the factors to be considered to determine whether the testimony of an Approver is credible and reliable?The Court held that the creditworthiness / reliability of the testimony of an approver is not dependent on any one factor. "There are several factors which must be considered cumulatively to determine whether the testimony is credible and reliable. The first and foremost is that the approver must not appear to be a planted witness. Once that hurdle is crossed, the testimony of an approver is to be tested as any other witness, though with greater care and caution. One of the necessary tests is that his 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",said the Court 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...

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

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

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

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers