Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
SHERA SINGH
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE STATE OF PUNJAB
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28/08/1996
BENCH:
RAY, G.N. (J)
BENCH:
RAY, G.N. (J)
HANSARIA B.L. (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCALE (6)345
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Three accused, including the appellant Shera Singh,
were tried for an offence of murder before the learned
Sessions Judge, Feorzepur in Sessions Trial No.41 of 1983.
By the Judgment dated 29th July, 1983 the learned Sessions
Judge convicted all the three accused under Section 302 read
with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them
to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of
Rs.500/- or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
six months. The said three convicted accused, including the
appellant, preferred appeal before the Punjab and Haryana
High Court being Criminal Appeal No. 560-DB of 1983. By the
impugned Judgment dated 17th July, 1984, the High Court
acquitted the two co-accused Lachman Singh and Balbir Singh,
but the conviction of the appellant for an offence of murder
under Section 302 IPC has been upheld by the High Court. It
may be stated that in this case there is no direct evidence
about the complicity of any of the accused in committing the
murder of one Sucha Singh at about 9.00 P.M. on 28th July.
1982 excepting the evidence of the approver. being PW.13. As
per illustration (b) under Section 114 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872, an accomplice is unworthy of credit,
unless he is corroborated in material particulars. In the
instant case, the only evidence other than the deposition of
the said approver, is the deposition of PW.16. the brother
of the deceased who only stated that the deceased was seen
by the said brother near the canal bridge of village Midna
at about 9.00 P.M. on 28th July, 1982 and he had gone to the
western side alongwith the appellant Shera Singh. As the
names of other two accused were not mentioned by PW.16, the
High Court gave them the benefit of doubt and acquitted them
but since the name of the appellant was mentioned by PW 16
as the person with whom the deceased was last seen together,
the conviction against the appellant has been upheld by the
High Court. The High Court has held that as the name of the
appellant was mentioned by PW 16 as the person with whom the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
deceased was last seen, the evidence of PW 16 gets
corroboration from the deposition of the approver PW 13.
In our view, such finding of the High Court is not
justified. Simply on the basis of evidence of PW 16 that the
deceased was last seen in the company of the appellant, the
appellant is not liable to be convicted for the offence of
murder. The deposition of an approver is required to be
corroborated in material particulars. The circumstance about
which PW 16 deposed cannot be regarded such a corporation.
So, the conviction of the appellant by relying upon the
evidence of PW 13 was not justified. We, therefore, allow
this appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence passed
against the appellant. The appellant has been released on
bail during the pendency of this appeal by this Court. His
bail bonds stand discharged.