STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. GIRASIA MANGALSINH KESHUBHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) * * * *

(2.) The point however that requires to be determined in this appeal is as to whether the evidence in the case is so sufficient and reliable as to hold the accused liable for the same beyond any reasonable doubt. The prosecution has mainly relied upon the evidence of the approver Sajubha Ex. 8 the son of Pratapsinh for showing that not only the accused killed his father but that both of them had removed his dead body along with various incriminating articles etc. to the well in the Moti Wadi of Swami Narayan Temple and had thrown the same in that well so that it may not be detected by any one. The evidence of this approver is sought to be corroborated by certain circumstances disclosed from other evidence in the case and we shall deal with them in the serial order as they have been urged before us. Before however we consider the effect of the evidence of this approver Sajubha as also the other evidence of a corroborative character in the case it is essential to keep in mind certain principles for appreciating the same. Without going to various decisions which lay down more or less the same principles we can usefully refer to the principles set out in the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Saravanabhavan and Govindaswamy v. State of Madras A.I.R. 1966 Supreme Court 1273. Under sec. 133 of the Indian Evidence Act an accomplice is a competent witness against an accused person; and a conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. Even so under sec. 114 of the Indian Evidence Act it is provided that the Court may presume that an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless he is corroborated in material particulars. Ordinarily therefore a Court seeks for corroboration of the evidence of an approver before convicting an accused person on that evidence. Then the Supreme Court has observed as under:-

(3.) An approver though a competent witness and a conviction based on his evidence alone may not be legally bad it is recognised rule of law that before convicting an accused person on that evidence it must be firstly credible in itself or say of a reliable witness at the same time showing that he had taken part in the crime. Secondly if that initial test is satisfied the Court has to find out whether his evidence finds sufficient corroboration both with regard to the crime as also in relation to the identity of accused in connection therewith from other reliable material on record. Thirdly credibility or reliability of an approver can well be considered as a whole along with the other evidence in the case. The corroborative evidence should be independent and reliable since that weighs with the mind of the Court in acting upon the other part of the evidence of the approver relating to the crime committed by the accused in any such case. With these broad principles before our mind we shall consider the evidence in the case and find out whether the learned Sessions Judge was right in acting upon the same in holding the accused guilty for the murder of Pratapsinh in the case. ... ... ... ... ... ... ...