Evidence of an accomplice is admissible and can be the basis for conviction.

On August 29, 2000, four accused persons, including Haji Mohd. Altaf (A1), a lawyer, and Narender Singh (A2), a Sub-Inspector, conspired to falsely implicate Sushil Gulati (PW12) in a sexual assault case to extort money from him.

This conspiracy arose after PW12 reported A3 (C.M. Dutta), a police officer, for molesting his daughter-in-law, leading to A3's suspension and threats against PW12.

In furtherance of the conspiracy, PW1 (Rajni Gupta) was used to make a false statement under a fictitious name, "Seema Kaur," alleging rape by PW12 and two associates in a moving car.

Based on this false statement (Exhibit PW1/B FIS), a Zero FIR was registered, followed by FIR No. 852/2000 at Rajouri Garden Police Station, charging PW12 under Sections 328, 376, 506 read with 34 IPC.

PW12 was arrested and subjected to police and judicial custody for several days.

The Crime Branch subsequently took over the investigation, which revealed PW12's innocence and the fabricated nature of the charges.

PW1, when interrogated, confessed that the rape allegation was false and part of a conspiracy orchestrated by A1, A2, A3, and A4 to implicate PW12.

DNA reports exonerated PW12, instead identifying semen from A4 and one Babloo Mandal on PW1's clothes.

A chargesheet was filed against A1 to A4 for offences including Sections 193, 195, 218, 465, 389, and 120B IPC.

During the trial, A4 died before charges were framed, and A3 died during the trial, leading to abatement of charges against them.

PW12 died on December 19, 2014, before his cross-examination could be completed, despite repeated appearances in court.

The trial court convicted A1 and A2, sentencing them to various terms of rigorous imprisonment and fines, totaling ₹3,00,000, with ₹2,00,000 to be paid as compensation to PW12's legal representatives.

Aggrieved by the conviction, A1 and A2 filed appeals (CRL.A. 286/2016 and CRL.A. 326/2016), while PW12's legal representatives filed an appeal (CRL.A. 691/2016) seeking enhancement of sentence and compensation.

1. Whether the conviction and sentence passed against the appellants (A1 and A2) by the trial court are sustainable.

2. Whether the testimony of PW1, PW2, PW6, and PW7 is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be relied upon because Sections 306 or 307 Cr.P.C. were not resorted to.

3. Whether the compensation awarded to the legal representatives of PW12 Sushil Gulati should be enhanced.

Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, asserting that an accomplice is a competent witness, and conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice.

Section 118 of the IEA regarding the general competency of witnesses and Section 132 IEA, which protects witnesses from self-incrimination for answers compelled in court, except for false evidence.

Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution, protecting against self-incrimination for accused persons, and clarified that this protection does not extend to witnesses voluntarily testifying against others.

Section 33 of the IEA was applied, allowing evidence given by a witness in previous judicial proceedings to be relevant if the witness is dead, cannot be found, incapable of giving evidence, kept out of the way by the adverse party, or their presence cannot be obtained without unreasonable delay or expense, provided the adverse party had the right and opportunity to cross-examine.

The court also noted the provisions of Section 306 and 307 Cr.P.C. concerning tender of pardon to accomplices and Section 315 Cr.P.C. concerning an accused person as a witness.

The proviso to Section 372 Cr.PC regarding a victim's right to appeal for inadequate compensation was invoked.

The court rejected the appellants' argument that the testimony of PW1, PW2, PW6, and PW7 was inadmissible for lack of pardon under Sections 306 or 307 Cr.P.C.

Relying on Lakshmipat Choraria v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1968 SC 938) and Chandran alias Manichan alias Maniyan & Ors. v State of Kerala (2011 KHC 4315), the court held that these witnesses, though potentially accomplices, were competent witnesses under Section 133 IEA, distinguishing Abdul Razak vs. Union of India (2021 SCC OnLine Ker 3282) where the witness was a co-accused.

The court found the prosecution's case, particularly the testimonies of PW1, PW2, PW6, PW7, PW9, and PW12, to be credible and sufficiently corroborated.

It highlighted the detailed accounts of the conspiracy, the staging of the rape, PW1's false FIR, the subsequent confession of its falsity, and the DNA evidence exonerating PW12 and implicating A4.

The court emphasized A1's role as a lawyer orchestrating the false implication and A2's active involvement as a police officer at various stages, including his presence in A1's chamber and at the scene where PW1 was "thrown".

Regarding the uncross-examined testimonies of PW6 and PW12, the court applied Section 33 IEA, noting that despite ample opportunities, the defense failed to cross-examine them, resorting to "delaying tactics".

PW12's consistent presence in court, despite repeated adjournments sought by the defense, and his eventual death before cross-examination was completed, was deemed a clear instance of harassment and abuse of the process of law.

The court also considered the long delay in trial, which contributed to minor inconsistencies in witness testimonies but did not discredit the overall veracity of their accounts.

The trial court's judgment was upheld, finding no infirmity.

Under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C., which allows a victim to appeal for inadequate compensation, the court found the awarded amount of ₹2,00,000 from a total fine of ₹3,00,000 to be insufficient.

The court partly allowed CRL.A. 691/2016, modifying the order on sentence to enhance the compensation.

The entire fine amount of ₹3,00,000 (totaling ₹1,50,000 each from A1 and A2) shall be paid as compensation to the legal representatives of PW12 Sushil Gulati.

The court highlighted the severe misconduct of A1 (a lawyer) and A2 (a police officer) and the need to send a strong message against such misuse of position and authority.