Introduction 

This is an important case on the admissibility of approvers evidence in criminal trials.

Facts

• Accused, an Air Force employee, and the approver, both employed at Sirsa, were close friends.
• Accused developed an intimate relationship with Balbir Kaur, insisting on marriage while posing as a bachelor.
• On 12 &13^th June, they tried to bring Balbir back, resulting in a heated exchange and accused's wife, Bimla, returned home later.
• Accused demanded a divorce from his wife, expressing intentions to harm her and declared his intent to kill her.
• The accused, his wife, the approver of the crime, and two others took a train journey in July 1968.
• When the train left Rewari, only these five were in the compartment.
  • Accused threw Bimla on the floor, and the approver held her feet while Bhanu Parkash Singh threw acid in her mouth.
  • Ravinder later threw her from the moving train.
• The Trial Court acquitted accused, citing lack of evidence.
• The Additional Sessions Judge also disbelieved the approver, finding no corroboration.
• The High Court, however, deemed the approver credible under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA), noting corroboration in material particulars.
• It convicted accused under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), citing the approver's reliability and supporting evidence.

Issue Involved

• Whether the husband caused the murder of his wife?

Observations

• The material aspect in the case involves the accused accompanying the deceased on a train in July 1968.
• This is supported not only by the approver's statement but also by independent evidence.
• The deceased's location by a distant railway track aligns with her supposed train journey.
• Despite the approver's compromised credibility due to seeking immunity, his testimony must pass two tests: a plausible and detailed narrative implicating him in the crime, and an implication of the accused leading to guilt beyond doubt.
• While rare exceptions allow uncorroborated approver evidence, in most cases, corroboration is essential.
• The approver in this case, a constant companion of the accused, exhibits no unreliability or inconsistency.
• The Trial Court's scepticism was rightly rejected by the HC, emphasizing the lack of implausibility in the approver's account and suggesting premeditation in the crime's execution.
• The SC found the approver in the present case to be highly reliable and the testimony of the approver corroborated with independent witnesses.

Conclusion

• Finally, the SC upheld the decision of the HC convicting the accused and dismissed the appeal.

Note

• Section 302 of IPC - Punishment for murder
  • Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
• Section 30 of IEA- Consideration of proved confession affecting person making it and others jointly under trial for same offence.
  • When more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and some other of such persons is proved, the Court may take into consideration such confession as against such other person as well as against the person who makes such confession.
  • Explanation. - "Offence" as used in this section, includes the abetment of, or attempt to commit, the offence.
• Section 133 of IEA - Accomplice
  • An accomplice shall be a competent witness against an accused person; and a conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice.