Allahabad High Court
Ashok Kumar Singh And Others vs State Of U.P. on 9 July, 2026
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:137266-DB
Order Reserved On:-22.04.2026 Order Delivered On:-09.07.2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1736 of 1988
Ashok Kumar Singh And Others
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Aryan Srivastava, Pramod Kumar Singh, Rajeev Kumar Sharma, Rajiv Lochan Shukla, Satya Prakash Singh, Shivam Singh, Siddhartha Shukla, Viresh Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
A.G.A., Rajeev Kumar Singh
Court No. - 43
HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.
HON’BLE VINAI KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
(Delivered by Hon’ble Siddharth,J.)
1. This case is listed peremptorily today, but learned counsel for informant is not present.
2. Heard Sri P.C. Srivastava, learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri Chandra Shekhar, Sri Adesh Srivastava, Sri Anand Pratap Singh, Sri Devesh Srivastava, Sri Satya Prakash and Sri Rahul Saxena, Sri Shivam Singh, learned counsel for appellants; Sri Prem Shankar Prasad, learned AGA for State-respondent and perused the material on record.
3. The present criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 03.08.1988 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deoria, in Sessions Trial No. 102 of 1983, State v. Ashok Kumar Singh and Others, whereby appellant Nos. 1 and 2 have been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 148 IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 201 IPC. Appellant Nos. 3, 4 and 5 have been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 147 IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 201 IPC. All the sentences awarded to each of the appellants have been directed to run concurrently.
4. The prosecution case which comes out from the F.I.R. and the statements of the witnesses is that Wali Mohid., P.W.-2, Chaukidar of P.S. -Captainganj, had lodged a report at the police station alleging that a pucca road goes from Pipraich to Partawal near village, Bhujdiha. The village of the complainant is at a distance of 2-1/2 furlongs towards west from this road. Village, Basanput, is also near to the road towards east. It is alleged that one dead body was lying in arhar field of Shiwane, who is resident of village Basantpur. It is alleged that this information was conveyed to him at about 05:00 a.m. As soon as he received information he went to the field and found that the dead body was lying there. About 20-25 persons were present. After seeing a dead body lying in the field he went to the police station to lodge a report. He has stated that he had orally informed the head constable about the recovery of dead body of the deceased. The constable had prepared chik F. I. R. on the dictation of the P.W.-2.
5. P.W.-1, Dalip Kumar Singh, states that he is the pradhan of his village, Onkar Singh, was resident of the same village. He was murdered. Onkar Singh, was the student leader in the Gorakhpur University. He was murdered on 30.12.82 in the night. He states that he had gone to that place on 31.12.1982 where the dead body of Onkar Singh was found. He had identified the dead body of Onkar Singh. This dead body was lying in the field and that too was in a wheat field. This field was lying on the road which was going through Paratawal to Pipraich. He further states that the dead body was identified by him in presence of investigating Officer. The investigating officer had kept the deed body in sealed cover and taken it into custody. Blood was foundhosue on the pucca road, Empty cartridges were also found on the road. Other articles which were found near the road were taken into the police custody by the I.O. He states that the place where the dead body was found is as a distance of about 8-9 kms, from his village. An inquest report of dead body was prepared by the I.O. P.W.-1 was also one of the punches of that inquest report. He has stated that the I.O. had appointed the punches and after appointing the punches he prepared inquest report.
6. P.W.-3, Umesh Singh, who is one of the accused has been made accomplice in the present case. This witness has stated that on 30th, December, Ashok Singh, Rana Pratap and his associates had come to Bodarwar market. He met them in that market. Rana Pratap had talk with one Tiwari, whose name he does not know. Lateron all of then went to the ten shop of Raghunath where they had eaten Pakauri and tea and purchased wine. Thereafter all of them went to the house of Ashok by jeep. The house of Asok lies in village Barhara.
7. The associates of Ashok and Rana had told that they had come to settle a marriage. P.W.-3 also went to village Barham by that Jeep. All of them stayed at the house of Ashok. They asked P.W.-3 to go to the house of Onkar singh and bring him. He went to the house of Onkar Singh, deceased for calling him. Onkar Singh, had told to P.W.-3 that Jairam will also go with them. He had ordered P.W.3 to bring Jairam. P.W.-3 went to the house of Jairam for calling him but Jairam was not available at his house because he had gone to his field in connection with irrigating field. He had conveyed this information to Onkar Singh. Onkar Singh told to P.W.-3 to accompany him. On this request of Onkar Singh, P.W.-3 accompanied with Opakaurinkar Singh upto the house of Ashok Singh. As soon as they reached the house of Ashok Singh, he and Rana and their other associates had shaken their hands with Onkar Singh and got him seated. It is said that Ashok Singh’s brother had one son and they talked about the marriage of that boy. Onkar Singh has also told what Umesh Singh is also unmarried. The associates of Ashok Singh had immediately uttered that let Umesh Singh accompany us and his marriage will be settled. Boiled eggs were brought from the house of Ashok Singh. Ashok and Rana requested, Onkar Singh to take eggs. On his request Onkar Singh asked them that they are the relations and firstly they should take the boiled eggs. Pattidar stated that is he will not take eggs or meat. On this reply Ashok and Rana said to Onkar Singh that he is not present at his house hence he can take eggs and meat. There after Ashok Singh, Rana and their colleagues along with Onkar Singh took drink and eat eggs, The approver, P.W.3, had also taken the drinks and eggs. Thereafter they also uttered that there is only one hen would not be sufficient for them. Therefore, let us go to Sudhiyeni market to purchase meat. After this conversation Onkar Singh had asked P.W.-3 to go to his house and bring his pant, shirt and shawl either from his mother or his wife. On this request of Onkar Singh he immediately proceeded to the house of Onkar Singh and demanded all these clothes from his mother. At about 04:00 p.m., he came back to that place bringing the clothes. Onkar Singh had put on the clothes and took seat in the jeep. All other persons had also seated in the jeep and proceeded for Sudhiyani market. The approver was also with them. Chhedi, uncle of Ashok Singh also accompanied them to Sudhiyani market. They purchased meat from Abhiraj and returned back to their house by jeep. They also discussed that let us go to Bodarwar market where they had purchased Tikiya from Rajdeo’s Shopan wine from the wine shop. Upendra also took seat in the jeep, who is one of the accused. The approver and Onkar Singh had also sat in the jeep. Before reaching the house, jeep stopped near culvert of Bari Nahar. Ashok Singh and Rana said that let us drink the wine and eat tikiya and thereafter we will proceed. P.W.-3 had asked that he had no clothes. We are getting late, let us go to proceed, jeep was started from there but did not come to the village. Ashok and Rana asked Onkar Singh go to brick kiln and take money which is due from the owner of the brick kiln. Approver had asked them not to go to that place but Ashok and Rana did not accept it. Onkar Singh uttered that do not fear we are brothers. On his utterance they went to the brick kiln and demanded money from the owner of the brick kiln. There was no money with the owner of the brick kiln. Some papers were there. Rana gave a slap to the owner of the brick kiln. The owner of the brick kiln went to house to bring the money but he did not return. The brick kiln was lying at a distance of 7 kms from village Barharm, In the meantime Onkar Singh started saying that he is not feeling well but the accused Ashok, Rana, Chhedi, and Upendra said that the jeep will go to the village through Manasagarh, Partwal and Captainganj. The jeep was started but was turned towards Piparaich instead of going through Partawal. The jeep started buzzing, Rana had fired from his gun on Onkar Singh in the running jeep. The approver asked the driver to stop the jeep because the wheal of the jeep appears to be defetive but the jeep driver rebuked him and asked him to sit silently.
8. It is alleged that the driver of the jeep had also caught the collar of the P.W.-3. The time of incident was about 7:30 p.m. Ashok Singh had also caught hold of the approver and abused him. Rana again fired upon Onkar Singh. The second fire hit on the neck of the Onkar Singh. Rana has uttered that your brother has been sent to that place from where he had come and if you tried to speak or open your mouth you will also be shot dead. The dead body of the Onkar Singh was put near the road and all of them went to Hata through Piparaich. The jeep was brought to that village and (PW-3) was also in that jeep with those persons. In the village, Puyal was spread in the jeep. P.W.-3 was sitting in the front seat of the jeep but Rana had caught the neck of P.W.-3 and dragged him behind the back seat of the jeep. Ashok immediately uttered that he should also killed. Cheddi, uncle of accused, Ashok, had uttered that if he is killed there would not be good and that would create critical situation. Thereafter, the jeep turned towards Deoria. In the way one bus no. 3777 was lying and the jeep was stopped there. As soon as the jeep stopped P.W.-3 and Upendra jumped down from the jeep and ran away from that place. There was a nalla on the way. U Singh, Rana Pratap and his associates had come to Bodarwar market. He met them in that market. Rana Pratap had talk with one Tiwari, wpendra got himself seated on his shoulder and they crossed the Nalla. Upendra does service in the mill. From there Upendra had gone to his factory situated at Captainganj and P.W.-3 went to Pipraich and from Pipraich he came back to his house. As soon as he reached his house his mother asked about Onkar Singh. She enquired from P.W.-3 whereabouts of Onkar Singh. She also said that the father of Onkar Singh had come to search him. The brother of P.W.-3 started abusing him and asked him to tell the whereabouts of Onkar Singh. The brother of P.W.-3 also said that it is he who had gone to commit dacoity.
9. P.W.-4, Radhe Shyam Singh, has been examined by the prosecution. He stated that he was knowing Onkar Singh. He was resident of village Barham. He has stated that he had seen the deceased 4-5 days before from the date of murder, in the Bodarwar market, at about 12:00 p.m. He has stated that he also took tea with the deceased on that very day. This witness was declared hostile.
10. P.W.-5, Abhiraj, has been examined who has stated that Sudhiyani market lies at a distance of one kosh from his house. Sudhiyani market is held on Monday and Thursday. He has stated that he sells meat in the Sudhiyani market on both days. he further states that he was knowing Onkar Singh who is now alive. He has stated that he had seen Onkar Singh when he has come to his shop to purchase meat. When he had purchased meat, it was about 4:00 p.m. He further stated that Onkar Singh had come with Umesh after 4:00 p.m. He states that the puccka road is at a distance of one Bighas from the market. Next day he come to know that Onkar Singh was murdered.
11. P.W.-6, Roopnaain Singh, has been examined by the prosecution. He has stated that Onkar Singh was resident of village Barham. He was murdered about 2 years ago. The house of Onkar Singh is near to the house of P.W.-6. He states that accused Umesh had gone tot he house of Onkar Singh at about 03:30 p.m. Just after few minutes Umesh Singh returned back with Onkar Singh from his house. Thereafter, again Umesh Singh returned back all alone. It is alleged that Umesh Singh had taken away the clothes of the Onkar Singh. Umesh Singh had also told to P.W.-6 that he was going to the house of Onkar Singh. He had also enquired from Umesh Singh at the time when he was going with the clothes of the deceased. He further states that he had lastly seen the accused, Ashok Singh and deceased, Onkar Singh, going towards the house of Ashok. The jeep was standing at the house of Ashok. Next day it was flared up in the Mohalla that Onkar Singh was murdered.
12. P.W.-7, Salhant, has stated that Onkar Singh was resident of his village. He was murdered 2 years ago. He states that at about 03/04:00 p.m, he had seen the deceased in the living condition. he has stated that lastly he had seen the deceased at the door of the house of Mithai because he was sitting there. Umesh Singh came to the house of Onkar Singh and took him away. Later on Umesh Singh came back and took the clothes of Onkar Singh from his house. Mithai had asked Umesh Singh as to where he was going then he uttered that he was going to the house of Ashok where certain guests had come. Next day he came to know that Onkar Singh was murdered.
13. P.W.-8, Kapildeo, who is the son of Raj Mangal has stated that his house is situated towards west at a distance of 1 km, from Bodarwar market. He states that Onkar singh was a resident of village Barhara and he was murdered. he further states that accused, Dayashankar Patel had demanded a sum of Rs. 1,000/- from hm and also assured that he would give bricks in lieu of this money. He further states that he had seen Ashok, Rana, Chhedi and some other persons sitting in the jeep 2 years ago. The accused, Dayashankar Patel demanded the aforesaid money from him one day before. He states that he had not seen the accused, Dayashankar Patel, sitting in the jeep. he further states that Onkar Singh was also sitting in that jeep with the accused. Next day he heard that Onkar Singh had been murdered. he had lastly seen the accused and the deceased in the jeep at about 5:00 p.m., in the Bodarwar market.
14. P.W.-9, Rajdeo Pandey, has stated that he runs his tea and pakauri shop in the Bodarwar market. He states that he was knowing Onkar Singh, who had been murdered. He further states that in the evening deceased, Onkar Singh, had not gone to his tea shop on the day when he was murdered. He has been declared hostile.
15. P.W.-10, Ramraj, has been examined but he was also declared hostile.
16. P.W.-11, Kashinath Upadhyay, S.I., has come in the witness box. He has stated that on 31.12.1982 he was posted as S.I. at the police station, Captainganj, District- Deoria. The case was registered at the police station in his presence. Chik F.I.R. Ext. Ka-1 bears the signature of P.W.-11. Head moharir, Ramashanker was also present at the police station. The entry of the case was made in the G.D. at serial no.14 on 31.12.1982 at 10:30 a.m. The copy of G.D. is Ext.Ka2. It has been proved by this witness. The investigation was entrusted to him and he took all the papers and other instructions from the police station. He recorded statement of complainant and head moharir at the police station. Thereafter, he went to place of occurrence where the dead body was found in a field. An inquest report was prepared after appointing punches. Necessary papers were also prepared. The dead body of the deceased was sent to the District Hospital, Deoria, for getting the post mortem done through constable, Hira Lal Kushwaha and Umashankar Singh. The dead body was identified by Dilip Singh before sending the dead body to the hospital. He states that thereafter he recorded statement of the punches. He also inspected the place of occurrence. He prepared the site plan Ext.Ka-3. The blood was found at place ‘A’ as shown in the map. He further states that blood was also found at point ‘X’ as shown in the map where the dead body was lying. The blood stained earth and simple earth were taken by him. They were kept into empty container and prepared Fard Ext. Ka-5. He further states that two empty cartridges were also found on the spot. A fard Ext.-Ka-6 to this effect was prepared by him. Certain tikali were also found near the dead body. They were also taken into police custody and Ext. Ka-7 was prepared. We further states that one Gamccha and one shawl was also founappellantd near the dead body. They were also taken into police custody. Fard was prepared which is Ext.Ka-8. He further states that other things which were recovered from the dead body of the deceased were taken into police custody and Fard Ext. Ka-9 was prepared. One another Gamchha was also found where and Fard Ext.Ka-10 was prepared. He states that all things recovered from the place were sealed and Fard Ext.ka-11 to this effect was prepared.
17. He states that after that he recorded statement of Munna Singh, the father of the house of deceased to inform about his death has also given certain clue about involvement of the accused in that murder case. Thereafter, he further recorded statement of Raj Kishor Singh, Birendra Singh, Abhiraj, Rajdeo Pande, Ramayan, jai Ram, Sitaram, Om Prakash and Gorakh. These statements were recorded on 1.1.1983. He again started investigation of the case. Statement of Kusama, Ambika Singh, Aniruda Singh, Rudra Narain Mithai and Saldant were recorded. On 03.01.1983 he tried to search the accused but they were not available. On 04.01.1983 he received post mortem report. On 05.01.1983 he again started investigation of the case. He states that accused, Upendra and Umesh Singh, were arrested in the field of Chakiya middle school and he recorded their statements. The accused were put into the police look up on 06.01.1983 he arrested the accused, Dayashankar Patel in the Bodarwar market and recorded his statement. He was brought to the police station and put into lockup. On 07.01.1983 he recorded statement of constable, Hiralal and constable, Umashankar Singh. On the order of S.P., Deoria, he handed over the investigation to the S.I.S.
18. P.W.-12, Muneshwar Singh, has come in the witness box who has stated that his house is situated in the eastern side of the village. The house of accused, Ashok Singh, lies at a distance of 100 metres towards east. He has stated that on 30.12.1982 he had seen a jeep at 06:00 p.m., at the house of accused, Ashok. This witness is the father of the deceased. He stated that on 31.12.1982, Umesh Singh, has come to his house to call his son, Umesh, is also resident of the same village who is the friend of Ashok. This witness has stated that Umesh had asked the deceased to go to the house. It was about 03:30 p.m., Umesh had also gone to the house of Onkar Singh to bring his cloth. He has also stated that one full pant, bush-shirt, one woolen sweater and one shawl had taken from his house and went to the house of Ashok. Umesh has also uttered to the father of the deceased that they want to go out side of the village. He has stated that one day before this incident Onkar Singh, Sugriva Singh and Suresh Singh had beaten Ashok accused. There had been case in respect of marpit in the court of Kasia. On the date when the statement o Muneshwar Singh was recorded in the court that case had already been finished. Due to that case the relation in between Onkar Singh and Ashok Singh became strained. Ashok Singh so many times utterd that he would take revenge of this Marpit but 2-3 months from the date of incident Upendra and Chheddi accused had got compromised done in between Ashok and Onkar Singh. Onkar Singh deceased started going to the house of Ashok and Ashok started going to the house of Onkar Singh. The accused, Rana Pratap, is resident of village, Khampar, P.S. Khampar. He used to come to village, Barhara. He has further stated that Ran is the maternal brother of accused, Ashok. He has categorically stated in his examination in chief that Onkar Singh did not return back to his house from the date when he went to the house of Ashok. He has stated that next day he come to know that Onkar Singh was murdered and the dead body of Onkar Singh was brought tot he place station.
19. P.W.-13, Dr. M.S. Alam., has come in the witness box and stated that on 01.01.1983 he was posted as Medical Officer in T.B. Clinic. At about 01:45 p.m., constable, Umashankar Singh and Hira Lal Kushwaha, had brought the dead body of deceased. He has stated that he conducted the post mortem on the dead body of the deceased. The death of the deceased was about 1-1/2 day old. He was about 26 years old and the construction of normal. He had found the following ante-mortem injuries over the dead body of the deceased. He has stated that the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage. He has proved the post mortem report Ext.Ka-13. He has further stated that the injuries which had been caused on the person of the deceased were sufficient to cause death of the deceased. He has further stated that there injuries might have been caused by firearm. He further stated that after conducting post mortem on the dead body of the deceased he handed over the clothes and body of the deceased to the constable under sealed cover.
20. P.W.-14, Brahmeshwar Singh, has stated that the case was registered at P.S. Captainganj. Investigation was done by the Kashi Nath Upadhaya (S.I.) on 08.01.1983 the investigation was received by him. He was posted at Deoria as S.I.S. he has further stated that this order was passed by then Superintendent of Police, Deoria, and he got the entire papers relating to the case and started investigation. On 09.01.1983 he went to the Bodarwar market and searched the accused but they were not available. He has stated that he recorded the statement of Rampal and Ram Raj Yadav. The statement of Ramraj yadav was recorded in the case diary. A copy of the statement of Ramraj Yadav is Ext. Ka-14. On 10.01.1983 he recorded the statement of Patel and was also tried to search out of the accused. On 11.01.1983 he again went to Bodarwar market and recorded statement of the 3-4 witnesses. On 12.01.1983 he recorded statements of Goli Singh and Roop Narain in village, Barhara. He searched the jeep No. U.T.A 5602 and U.P.Q. 6965 which is alleged to have been used in the alleged occurrence. On 14.01.1983 he again went to Gorakhpur in connection with searching out the jeep and he also recorded statement of Om Prakash. On 15.01.1983 he stayed at Gorakhpur and recorded statement of Sangam Singh and tried to search the accused but they were not available. On 16.01.1983 he tried to enquire about the alleged jeep at Gorakhpur. On 17.01.1983 he came to Deoria and obtained permission from Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoria, to record statement of accused in jail. On 18.01.1983 he went to the District Jail Deoria and recorded statements of Rana Pratap, Dayashankar, Umesh, Upendra and Ashok. On 19.01.1983 he again tried to search out the jeep No. 6995. On 20.01.1983 he went to medical college Gorakhpur in search of the accused, Cheddi, and enquired about him. On 21.01.1983 he recorded statement of Radheshyam Singh in G.D. The copy of the statement of Radhesyam Singh, is Ext.Ka-15. On 23.01.1983 he recovered the jeep No. U.P. Q 6995. On 25.01.1983 he recorded statement of accused, Chhedi, in District Jail, Deoria. After completing the entire investigation of the case he submitted charge-sheet Ext.Ka-16. On 25.01.1983 against all the accused. He further proved the Fard recovery of jeep which is Ext.Ka-7.
21. The accused, Ashok and Rana Pratap Singh were charged under section 148 IPC. They were further charged under section 302 IPC. The third charge was framed against them u/s 201 IPC. Accused, Dayashankar Patel, Upendra Singh, Chhedi Singh and Umesh Singh, were charged under section 147 IPC. They were further charged under section 302/149 IPC. The third charge was again framed against these accused under section 201 IPC. All these charges were framed against the accused persons by then VII Addl. Sessions Judge, Deoria, on 13.08.1984.
22. The charges were read over and explained to the accused who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
23. Accused, Ashok Singh, has stated that he does not know whether, Onkar Singh, was student leader of the University or not. He had denied all the allegations and asserted that he has been implicated due to enmity, he stated that he had lodged a criminal case against, Onkar Singh, due to this enmity. He has been implicated in this false case.
24. Accused, Rana Pratap Singh, has also denied the allegations of the prosecution and stated that he has been implicated due to enmity. Accused, Dayashankar, has stated that he had gone tot he police station in connection with his own work but he was detained there. He has stated that he has been implicated due to enmity. Accused, Upendra, has also stated the same. He stated that he was arrested on 02.01.1983 from the factory. Accused, Chhedi Singh, has also denied the entire allegations of the prosecution and sMohammad v. State of Hyderabad (1954 SCR 475)tated that he has been implicated due to enmity. Accused, Umesh Singh, has stated that Onkar Singh was a student leader of the Gorakhpur University. He has stated that Rana Pratap Singh is resident of village Khapar, P.S.- Khampar. he has uttered that on 30.12.1983 he and Umesh Singh had gone tot he house of Muneshwar Singh to call the deceased, Onkar Singh. He has also stated that on 30.12.1983 a light yellow colour jeep had come to the house of Ashok Singh and 7-8 persons were standing at the house of Ashok Singh. This accused has stated that he had not seen as to where the dead body of the deceased was thrown. He has stated that he was arrested from his house. This accused has admitted the case of the prosecution. He has stated that the case has rightly been instituted.
25. No defence evidence was led in the present case.
26. After hearing the rival contentions, going through the material on record and judgment of the trial court, we find that in the present case it is admitted that no eye-witness had witnessed the murder of the deceased. It is also admitted that the case is based only on circumstantial evidence. It is also admitted that the accused, Ashok, and the deceased are of the same village. Co-accused, Umesh Singh, had moved an application under section 307 Cr.P.C., for granting him pardon. The application is 31 kha. On this application, an order was passed by trial court on 29.10.1984 under section 307 Cr.P.C., which is as follows:
“At any time after commitment of a case but `before judgment is passed, the court to which the commitment is made may, with a view to obtaining at the trial the evidence of any person supposed to have been directly or indirectly concerned in, or privy to, any such offences, tender a pardon on the same condition to such person.”
27. Trial court has accepted the application 31Kha of the accused only on this condition that he will disclose the all real and true facts of the case. It was also ordered that accused, Umesh, will file willingness.
28. The word “approver” is used to refer to a person who is either directly or indirectly associated with an offence and to whom a pardon is granted under Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code with the intention of obtaining the person’s evidence against other parties guilty of the offence.
29. However, this also casts suspicion on an approver’s testimony, making them unfit to serve as a witness in a fair trial. For this reason, the courts must anxiously search for some corroboration in order to determine the authenticity and reliability of such evidence. There is always a possibility that the approver will provide false evidence in order to seek his own pardon.
30. An accomplice in crime who accuses others of committing the same act and is admitted as a witness at the court’s discretion to testify against his partners in wrongdoing is described as an approver in Black’s Law Dictionary. He is abbreviated to “King’s Evidence.”
31. Thus, it might be claimed that an approver is someone who participated in a crime but afterwards confessed and agreed to testify for the prosecution. In some circumstances, the approver may also be granted a pardon for the evidence they approved.
32. This benefits both the prosecution and the approver because it strengthens the case against the accused and shortens the time needed to investigate the offence.
33. Approver’s confession is referred to as a “related confession” because it includes both an admission of guilt and an accusation that another person participated in the crime. If the opposing party’s charge was found to be true, the accusing defendant was released. Otherwise, the accused man was found guilty based only on his own confession.
34. Regarding evidentiary value of an approver is an accomplice in theory. The co-conspirator participates in key phases of the crime’s execution, such as planning, carrying out, or covering up, etc. According to K.K. Dalmia v. Delhi Administration 1962 AIR 1821 (SC), an accomplice is someone who voluntarily assists and cooperates with others in committing a crime. He is referred to as a Particeps Criminis, or an active participant in the crime.
35. He is “an accomplice witness is one who is either being jointly tried for the same offence and makes admissions which may be taken as evidence against a co-prisoner and which make the confessing accused pro hac vice a sort of witness, or one who has received a conditional pardon on the understanding that he is to tell all he knows, and who may at any time be relegated to the dock if he fails in his undertaking.”
36. The co-conspirator may have been aware that the crime would be committed but failed to take any action to stop it, or they may have engaged in other actions intended to make the crime less difficult to commit or less likely to be seen. Because they were personally involved, this provides the approver a somewhat unique perspective on the crime, making their testimony extremely valuable to the prosecution.
37. Before considering the testimony of an accomplice it is to be borne in mind that he is more likely to lie under oath in an effort to absolve himself of responsibility and since he participated in the crime and is therefore presumed to be immoral, a co-conspirator is more likely to disregard the oath; and he gives his testimony under the promise of a pardon if he discloses everything he knows against the people he committed the crime with, and this hope would cause him to favour corroboration of an accomplice’s evidence is therefore crucial .
38. An accomplice is a competent witness against his co-accused and his testimony against the accused is admissible, according to the Indian Evidence Act, 1872‘s Section 133. Furthermore, the fact that a testimony was unsupported by additional evidence does not make a conviction invalid. However, it has long been accepted practice in the legal community that the requirements of Illustration (b) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act must also be read in conjunction with Section 133 of the Evidence Act.
39. Illustration (b) of Section 114 of the Act states that an accomplice is a person who is unworthy of credit unless and until the evidence presented by the approver is corroborated by additional evidence. This section of the Act deals with facts that the Court may assume in a specific case. Illustration (b) is a rule of guidance when dealing with evidence by the approver, where Section 133 is the rule; however, it is a presumption juris et de jure and not an absolute rule of law. Thus it can be said that the combined effect of both the Sections is that though the conviction of an accused on the testimony of an accomplice cannot be said illegal, yet the courts will as a matter of practice, not accept the evidence of such a witness without corroboration in material particulars.
40 In Mahadeo v. King,(1936) the Privy Council confirmed that the requirement that such evidence by the approver be corroborated with independent evidence is essentially a rule of law rather than a rule of practice.
41. The double test for approver evidence was established in the seminal case of Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab 1957 AIR 637 (SC). The High Court in the current case considered the approver’s testimony, which was supported by other testimony, without taking into account the substantial flaws, contradictions, and improbabilities in that testimony. The court emphasized this point by ruling that:
Is the approver a trustworthy witness, even as an accomplice? This is the first and most important question to ask. If the response to this question is negative for the approver, the situation is resolved, and it is not necessary to assess whether his testimony has been corroborated or not. In other words, an approver’s evaluation of the evidence must pass two tests. His testimony must demonstrate his credibility as a witness, and all witnesses must pass this test.
Second, If the aforementioned requirement is met, the second test that must be used is that the approver’s proof must obtain adequate support. This test is unique to situations where the evidence, like that of the approver, is flimsy or suspect.
Consequently, It can be concluded that the approver must apply a twofold test to evidence, with the first test being the same for every witness and the second test of corroboration being unique to tainted evidence.
A court may presume the presence of certain facts under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, and Illustration (b) expressly states that an accomplice is not deserving of credit unless he is supported by relevant evidence.
As a result, even though the law allows for the conviction of an accused person based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, the rule of prudence, which is embodied in Illustration (b) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act, serves as a reminder to the courts that an accomplice generally isn’t worthy of reliance unless his testimony is supported by relevant details.
As a result, the courts have determined that the testimony of an approver may be used as evidence to record a conviction of an accused person if it is supported by direct or circumstantial evidence in pertinent details. The statement of an approver has typically been viewed with suspicion by the courts because he is generally regarded as a person of low morals and not entirely trustworthy who is willing to let down his former accomplices in order to gain his pardon. As a result, before recording a conviction, the courts insist on independent corroboration of his testimony .ve been directly or indirectly concerned in, or privy to, any such offences, tender a pardon on the same condition to such person.”
42. In Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan 1952 AIR 54, the Hon’ble Supreme Court addressed the issue of the degree of corroboration necessary with an approver’s evidence, concluding that the kind and degree of corroboration must inevitably vary depending on the specifics of each case as well as the alleged offence.
43. Independent evidence is simply necessary to support the approver’s testimony and make it credible and reliable; it is not necessary for it to support the accused’s conviction. Such unbiased proof must also link the accused to the crime’s commission. Normally, the evidence of one accomplice would not be sufficient to confirm that of another since the corroboration must come from different sources, not from the approver. The fact that such testimony was not supported by other independent sources of evidence does not, however, make a conviction invalid.
44. Many times, the crime is performed in a way that leaves no trace or clues that could lead to its discovery. To enable the discovery of potentially damning items and other evidence that would not otherwise be accessible, pardon is granted for the arrest of the other criminals.
45. To ensure that those who commit heinous and serious crimes are held accountable, the Legislature introduced Section 306, the code of criminal procedure. and limited its application to the class of cases mentioned therein. According to the Hon. Supreme Court’s ruling in Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar 1994 AIR 2420, anyone connected to the crime, whether directly or indirectly, is eligible for a pardon.
46. The accused gets released from the case and becomes a prosecution witness after securing a pardon under Section 306, the code of criminal procedure. He remains a witness for the prosecution as long as it does not certify under Section 308 (1), the code of criminal procedure. that he has broken the terms of the pardon, and the prosecution is required to cross-examine him as a witness in both the committing court and the trial court.
47. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872‘s caveat to Section 132 states that the approver’s evidence cannot, however, be used against him in any criminal proceedings that have the potential to directly or indirectly implicate him.
48. When the Public Prosecutor, in accordance with Section 308 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, issues a certificate of non-compliance of conditions, the pardon is forfeited, he is demoted to the status of an accused, and he is no longer able to testify against the defendant.
49. However, in certain situations, the approver must be tried separately, and any testimony provided by him or her is inadmissible against the approver and is no longer admissible as evidence against the co-accused. The only exception to this rule is that the approver’s evidence may be used against them in a subsequent trial where they will have the chance to demonstrate that they cooperated with the pardon requirement.
50. However, the legal standard for determining an accused person’s credibility has long been established. In accordance with the double test theory, the court must be convinced that further evidence exists in order to prove the accused’s guilt, which explains the requirement of independent evidence being corroborated along with the approver’s testimony.
51. Additionally, the accused is always required to provide a “True and Full Disclosure” of the facts; otherwise, they would have to stand trial again and will be considered co-accused. The law also stipulates that the evidence presented by the approver in such circumstances cannot be used to prove his or her guilt in the matter, striking a balance between their rights and those of the accused.
52. Now coming the present case we find that the testimony of PW-3 is very shaky and reliable, because in his testimony before the learned trial court, he has given the evidence but the said evidence is not corroborated with the medical evidence. The relevant part of the testimony of PW-3 is given as under-is:-
“????? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??? ??? ??? ?? ????? ???????? ????? ??? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?? ???? ?? ??? ???? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?? ??????? ??? ?? ?? ?? ??? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ????? ??? ??? ?? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ????? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ????? ?? ???? ??”.
“???? ??? ?? ?? ???? ?? ????? ?? ???? ????? ???? kaha ??????? ???? ??? ??? do ???? ????? ??? ??? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?? ?? ???? ????? ??? ?? ??? ??? ???? ??? ??????? ?? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ?????? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???? 7.30 ??? ?? ??? ??? ????? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?? ???? ???? ???? ??? ?? ??? ?? ????? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ???? ????? ????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ???”
53. At this juncture, the relevant part of of testimony of Dr. M.S. Azam (autopsy Susurgeon) is quoted below:-
“????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?? ???? ??? ???? ???? ???? ????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ?? 3-4 ???? ???? ???? ?????
???? ?? ??? ?? ????? ?? ??? ?? ????? ???? ??? ????? ????? ?? ??? ?? ????? ???? ???? ???”
54. The medical evidence thus does not support the prosecution case and as set up by P.W.-3 that prior to his death the deceased ate eggs and also consumed liquor. Such food were absent in the stomach of the deceased.
55. The empty cartridges were found on the place, where the dead body of the deceased was found. It proves that he was not murdered in the vehicle but on the place his dead body was recovered.
56. There is no reliable last seen evidence of the deceased with the appellants and there is no motive assigned them to commit the alleged offence.
57. As per the prosecution evidence, the fire was made on the person of deceased Omkar in the Jeep, but no blood stain was found inside the Jeep and there was no blackening or tattooing around the injuries sustained by the deceased and in this regard the relevant part of testimony of Dr. M.S. Azam (autopsy surgeon) is quoted below”
“???? ?? ??? ?? ????? ?? ??? ?? ????? ???? ??? ????? ????? ?? ??? ?? ????? ???? ???? ???”
58. The witnesses of last seen have also not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile.
59. The story setup by the PW-3, namely, Umesh Singh, a charge sheeted accused and later on who become the approver of the prosecution is not corroborated from the medical evidence.
60. It appears that learned trial court has not appreciated the evidence in its correct prospective and wrongly convicted the appellants.
61. It is a cardinal principle of criminal law that an accused is presumed to be innocent until his guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
62. In Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1973), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held: “If two views are possible, the one to the accused must be adopted.”
63. In Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab (1957), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held:
“Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof.”
64. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984), the Supreme Court held that:
“Each accused must be individually connected with the crime through complete and reliable evidence.”
65. In Vijayee Singh v. State of U.P. (1990), it was held:
“Where prosecution story becomes doubtful, benefit must go to the accused.”
66. In view of the above consideration we find that the conviction of appellants on the basis of statement of P.W.-3, the approver, is unsustainable. His testimony is not corroborated by any reliable evidence, rather it in contradiction with the medical evidence.
67. Hence, the conviction and sentences of the appellants are set aside along with the judgment and order under appeal.
68. Appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. They need not surrender.
69. Criminal appeal is allowed.
70. Let the record of trial court along with the copy of this judgment be sent to the trial court within a week.
(Vinai Kumar Dwivedi,J.) (Siddharth,J.)
July 9, 2026
Abhishek
Â
Â
