http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: RAVINDER SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA

DATE OF JUDGMENT07/02/1975

BENCH: GOSWAMI, P.K. BENCH: GOSWAMI, P.K. KRISHNAIYER, V.R. SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH

CITATION:  1975 AIR  856            1975 SCR  (3) 453  1975 SCC  (3) 742  CITATOR INFO :  R          1977 SC1579  (25)  RF         1988 SC 599  (5)

ACT: Criminal   Trial--Statement  of   the   approver--Approver’s evidence  to  be  tested by the  touchstone  of  independent credible evidence. Criminal  Trial--Issue-Estoppel--Parties and  facts-in-issue to  be  the same in both  trials--Approver’s  statement  not materially corroborated by other evidence against an accused in  another  trial--Conviction,  if could be  based  on  the testimony of the same approver against another accused in  a different trial.

HEADNOTE: The  case of the prosecution is that the appellant  who  was married to Bimla was employed in the Air Force Department it Sirsa.   During  his stay at Sirsa, when his  wife  was  not there,  he developed intimacy with a girl, Balbir Kaur,  who was  insisting  on marriage, ’which however,  the  appellant posing to be a bachelor was putting off holding out hopes to her.   The appellant and the Jasbir Inder  Singh  (approver) who  was  his friend, want on two months’ leave.   When  the appellant and the approver went to bring Bimla back from her father’s  house at Komal, the appellant asked his wife  that she  should  agree  to a divorce, but she  would  not.   The appellant used to say that he would finish his wife one day. On  July, 29, 1968, Bhanu Prakash, cousin of  the  appellant went  to  the house of the appellant.  On the same  day  the approver  also  returned  from Lucknow.   On  July  30,  the accused  told the approver in the presence of Bhanu  Prakash Singh that he would kill his wife that day.  He replied that he had brought acid with him and it would help in expediting her death.  On July 30, 1969, the appellant, his wife Bimla, his  brother Satinder Kumar, the approver and Bhanu  Prakash Singh  left  for Sirsa by train from Sasni  Railway  Station which is-at a distance of four or five miles from Komri. After  leaving  Sasni  at 12 Noon,  they  arrived  at  Delhi Railway  Station  at  6.30 P.M.  and  changed  for  Bhatinda Railway  Station.   They reached Rewari Railway  Station  at about  10.30 P.M. At Rewari their bogie was attached to  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

train bound for Srisa-Bhatinda.  When the train left  Rewari at 2.15 A.M. on july 31, 1968, there was no other  passenger in the compartment except the above five persons.  The train stopped for some time at the next Railway Station.  When  it again  started.  the  accused threw his wife  Bimla  on  the floor,  of  the compartment by catching hold of her  by  the neck.   When she fell down in the compartment  the  approver caught  hold  of  her by the feet and  Bhanu  Prakash  Singh "threw acid in her mouth".  Satinder Kumar did not take  any part.  The accused removed the pazebs from her feet and gold jumkas  from  her ,cars.  The accused threw Bimla  from  the running  train in between the first and the  second  railway stations  beyond Rewari.  Some acid drops fell on the  hands of  the accused and Bhanu Prakash Singh and on  their  pants and on the accused’s shirt.  When the train reached  Bhiwani the  accused got down for purchasing two tickets  for  Bhanu Prakash Singh and Satinder Kumar, but the Ticket  Collector. Raghbir Singh (PW 29) detained him and he missed the  train. Three of the aforesaid company reached Sirsa at 9.00 A.M. on July  31, 1968.  When asked about the accused, the  approver told Bansi Lal (PW 25) and Yudhishter Kumar (P26)   that the accused had missed the train at Bhiwani and would  be comingthe  next train. The accused arrived at  Sirsa  at 1.30 P.M. on July   31   BhaniParkash  Singh  left  for Aligarh  in  the evening of August 1. The  accused  and  the approver  resumed their duties at the Air Force  Station  on August 2. 1968. Bimla who had been thrown from the running train was  picked up, semi conscious, by Udmi (PW 10) and another person  from a railway track between jatusana and Kosli Railway Stations, and  taken to Railway Hospital, Rewari, Where Doctor  (Miss) K. Dass (PW 3) and Miss V. K. Sharma, Nurse (PW 2) 454 attended upon her.  She could speak out a little before Miss Sharma,  gave  her  name as Bimla wife of  the  accused  and daughter  of  Narain  Singh,  and  Indicated  that  the  was traveling with her husband by train.  She was later sent  to the  Civil Hospital, Rewari, where she was received  by  Dr. Manocha  (PW  1).   She  was not in a  position  to  make  a statement at the Civil Hospital and she expired at 8.45 P.M. on July 31. 1968.  The  appellant husband being charged under section  302/34, I.P.C. along with some others obtained an acquittal from the Trial Judge.  On the State’s appeal, the High Court  entered his conviction under section 302, I.P.C. and was given  life sentence.  Under section 2 of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of  Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970,  this-appeal has been preferred. It was contended for the appellant that (i) the approver was not  a reliable witness; (ii) the approver’s  statement  was not  corroborated in material particulars by other  evidence connecting the accused with the crime; and that, in as  much as the High Court has, in the appeal by Bhanu Prakash Singh, acquitted  him, on the ground that the  approver’s  evidence was  not corroborated in material particulars, the  rule  of issue-Estoppel should be applied in appellant’s favour. Rejecting the contentions. HELD : (i) and (ii) An  approver  is a most unworthy friend, if at all  and  he, having bargained for his immunity, must prove his worthiness for credibility in court.  This test is fulfilled,  firstly, if  the  story  he relates involves him  in  the  crime  and appears   instrinstcally  to  be  a  natural  and   probable catalogue  of  events that had taken place.   The  story  if given of minute details according with reality is likely  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

save it from being rejected brevi manu.  Secondly, once that hurdle is crossed, the story given by an approver so far  as the  accused  on trial is concerned, must implicate  him  in such  a  manner  as to give rise to a  conclusion  of  guilt beyond  reasonable  doubt.   In  a  rare  case  taking  into consideration all the factors, circumstances and  situations governing  a  particular  case,  conviction  based  on   the uncorroborated  evidence of an approver confidently held  to be  true  and  reliable by the  court  may  be  permissible. Ordinarily,  however,  an  approver’s statement  has  to  be corroborated  in material particulars bridging  closely  the distance  between  the  crime  and  the  criminal.   Certain clinching  features of involvement disclosed by an  approver appertaining  directly  to an accused, if reliable,  by  the touchstone  of  other independent credible  evidence,  would give the needed assurance for acceptance of his testimony on which a conviction may be based. [459B-H] Judged  by  these principles the evidence of  the  approver, while revealing the story, stands amply corroborated by  the facts  deposed  to by the independent witnesses  in  certain material  and clinching aspects and connecting  the  accused with the crime. [460D] (iii)in order to invoke the rule of issue-estoppel  not only the parties in the two trials must be the same but also the  fact-in-issue proved or nit in. the earlier trial  must be  identical  with what is sought to be reagitated  in  the subsequent trial. [461D-E] Lalta  and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [1969]  2  S.C.R. 526 and The King v. Wilkes,  77 S.L.R. 511 at  518  referred to. Manipur  Administration  v.  Thakchom Bira  Singh  [1964]  7 S.C.R. 123 at p.    133, relied on. In  the  present  case, the parties are the  State  and  the appellant.  In the other case relied upon, the parties  were the State and the accused Bhanu Prakash Singh.  There is  no inconsistency  between  the  finding  that  the   approver’s statement  there  was not materially corroborated  by  other evidence  against Bhanu Prakash and the contrary finding  in the  affirmative in the present case against the  appellant. 1461E--F]

JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL   APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.  156 of 1974. 455 From the Judgment and Order dated 12th February, 1974 of the the Punjab & Haryana High court in Criminal Appeal No.  1055 of 1969. R.   K.  Garg,  S.  C. Agarwal and V;  J.  Francis  for  the appellant. H.   S. Marwah and R. N., Sachthey, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Goswami, J. On July 30, 1968, Bimla, a hale and hearty young girt  (  19), indeed, by her right, legitimate wife  of  the accused, Ravinder Singh (23), accompanied on a rail  journey her  husband,  who, after enjoying two months’  furlough  at home, returned to his Air Force Station at Sirsa without her and  without the least concern.  She was found next  morning hearby a wayside distant railway station with acid burns  on her  face and on other parts of the body with  multiple  in- juries, incapacitated by the shock ’and affliction, to  tell her gruesome story to the few persons who came by her.   The only unchallenged thing was that she was pronounced dead  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

a hospital on July 31 1968, at 8.45 P.M. Did the husband cause the murder of his wife is for a. final judicial  solution  before us.  The  accused  husband  being charged  under section 302/24 I.P.C., along with son  others obtained  an acquittal from the Trial  Judge.   Government’s conscience  was  roused and the High Court  on  the  State’s appeal  entered  his conviction under  section  302  I.P.C., Shrinking, however, from. administering the extreme  penalty under  the law.  That is how the liter is before us in  this appeal  as a matter of right under section 2 of the  Supreme Court  (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)  Act 1970.   The entire story as given below is revealed by  friend  of the  accused, approver jasbir Inder Singh ( 21) (PW 5),  who was  arrested along with teh  accused  on August  13,  1968. Accused Ravinder Singh and the approver were employed in the Air  force department at Sirsa and were good friends.   Bhau Parkesh Singh since acquitted is the cousin of the  accused. Satinder  Kumar  (11) is the accused’s brother.  During  his stay at Sirsa, when his wife Bimla Kaur who was insisting on developed  his stay at  Sirsa, when his wife Bimla  was  not there,  the  accused marriage which, however ,  the  accused posing  to be a bachelor  was putting off holding out  hopes to  her.  Both the accused and the approver took two  months leave, the former to construct  his house at village  Komri. The  accused  and the approver with Satinder  Kumar  reached Komri  on  June 3, 1968, when  Bimla  was  in  her  parents’ house.   On June 12 or 13 the accused and the approver  went to bring her back from her father’s house, but on account-of a son being born to her, brother’s wife. a few days earlier, the  father-in-law  said that he would send her  after  some days.   This  led to some exchange of  hot  Words.   However after  7 or  8 days, Bimla returned ’to her  husband’s  home with  her  father and brother, Lekh Raj Singh  (PW  18)  The accused  went in entry July to see Bhanu Parkesh Singh,  his cousim,  who  was  employed  as  Health  Visitor  at   Arnod Dispensary and returned after 8 456 or 10 days.  The approver was in the, accused’s house during the  period.   The accused asked his wife  that  she  should agree  to a divorce, but she would not The accused  used  to say  that  he would finish his wife one day.   On  July  29, 1968,  Bhanu Parkash Singh came to the accused’s house.   On the  same day the approver also returned from Lucknow  where he had gone 7 or 8 days back.  On July 30, the accused  told the approver in the presence of Bhanu Parkash Singh that  he would  kill his wife that day.  Bhanu Parkash Singh  replied that  he  had  brought acid with him and it  would  help  in expediting  her death.  On July 30, 1968, the  accused,  his wife Bimla, the approver, Bhanu Parkash Singh and  Satinder- Kumar  left  for Sirsa by train from Sasni  Railway  Station which  is  at a distance of four or five miles  from  Komri. The  father  of  the accused came to see  them  off  at  the Railway  Station.   The  accused booked  a  cycle  at  Sasni Railway  Station and purchased two tickets for his wife  and Bhanu  Parkash  Singh, but did not purchase any  ticket  for Satinder  Kumar.   Both  the accused and  the  approver  had Military Railway Warrants for travel. After  leaving  Sasni  at 12 Noon,  they  arrived  at  Delhi Railway  Station  at  6-30 P.M.  and  changed  for  Bhatinda Railway  Station.   They reached Rewari Railway  Station  at about  10.30 P.M. At Rewari their bogie was attached to  the train bound for Sirsa-Bhatinda.  When the train left  Rewari at 2.15 A.M. on July 31, 1968, there was no other  passenger in the compartment except the above five persons.  The train

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

stopped for some time at the next Railway Station.  When  it again started. the accused threw his wife Bimla on the floor of  the  compartment by catching hold of her  by  the  neck. When  she fell down in the compartment the  approver  caught hold of her by the feet and Bhanu Parkash Singh "threw  acid in  her mouth".  Satinder Kumar did not take any  Part-  The accused  removed the pazebs from her feet and  gold  jhumkas from  her  ears.  The accused threw Bimla from  the  running train  in between the first and the second railway  stations beyond  Rewari.   Some acid drops fell on the hands  of  the accused  and Bhanu Parkash Singh and on their pants  and  on the  accused’s  shirt.  When the train reached  Bhiwani  the accused  got  down  for  purchasing  two  tickets-for  Bhanu Parkash Singh and Satinder Kumar, but the Ticket  Collector, Raghbir Singh (PW 29) detained him and he missed the  train. Three of the aforesaid company reached Sirsa at 9.00 A.M. on July  31, 1968.  When asked about the accused  the  approver told Bansi Lal (PW 25) and Yudhishter Kumar (PW 26) that the accused bad missed the train at Bbiwani and would be  coming by  the  next train.  The accused arrived at Sirsa  at  1.30 P.M.  on July 31.  Bhanu Parkash Singh left for  Aligarh  in the  evening  of  August 1. The  accused  and  the  approver resumed  their duties at the Air Force Station on August  2, 1968. On August 3, 1968, the mother of the accused and her nephew, Malkhan  Singh,  came to Sirsa and she told that  Bimla  had been  admitted in the Civil Hospital, Rewari, and  suggested that  they should register their- presence in the Air  Force Station at Sirsa in order to save themselves.  On August  4, the accused and the approver went to the 457 Medical  Assistant at the Air Force Station and the  accused showed  the urns on his hands and the Medical Assistant  (PW 50) made a note a his register.  They decided to leave their house at Now Mandi and again started living in the  barracks of  the Air Force from August 8. both of them were  arrested from the Air Force barracks on August 13, 1968.  This is  as disclosed by the approver (PW 5).  Let  us  now  turn to. the fate of Bimla  thrown  from  the running  train. She was picked up, Semi conscious,  by  Udmi (PW  10)  and another person from a  railway  track  between Jatusana  and  Kosli Railway stations and taken  to  Railway Hospital,  Rewari, where Doctor (Miss) K.Dass(PW3) and  Miss V.  K.  Sharma, Nurse (PW 2) attended upon her.   She  could speak  out  a little before Miss Sharma, gave  her  name  as Bimla, wife of the accused and daughter of Narain Singh, and indicated that she was traveling with her husband by  train. She was later sent to the Civil Hospital, Rewari, where  she was received by Dr Manocha (PW 1), She was not in a position to make a statement at the Civil Hospital and she expired at 8.45 P.M. on July 31,1968.  Postmortem examination of Bimla disclosed lacerated  wounds on the head and multiple abrasions on different parts of the body.  Face was disfigured by acid burns caused by sulphuric acid.  There were other stains on the body which,  according to  the Doctor, were of sulphuric acid.  Cause of death,  in his  opinion, was due to shock on account of burning  caused by  sulphuric  acid.  Sulphuric acid was also found  by  the Chemical  Examiner on jumper, dopatta, and petticoat in  the wearing of the deceased. The  Additional Sessions Judge disbelieved the approver  and also  held  that  his  statement  was  not  corroborated  in material   particulars,   He  held  that  motive   was   not established nor was the dying declaration proved.  The  High Court, however, found that the approver, who was  admittedly

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

a  friend  of the accused, was a reliable  witness  and  his statement  did not suffer from any defect  whatsoever.   The High  Court further held that the approver’s  statement  was corroborated  in  material  particulars  by  other  evidence connecting the accused with the crime. Since the accused has come in appeal against the judgment of the  High  Court  as a matter of right, we  have  heard  his learned  counsel  at length and also examined  the  evidence with  care.   We  are unable to hold  that  the  High  Court committed  any  error or injustice in interfering  with  the acquittal in this case. The  most  important  material aspect in the  case  is  with regard to the accused accompanying the deceased in the train on  July  30,  1968.   This is not  only  disclosed  by  the statement  of the approver but is corroborated  by  evidence aliunde.   The very fact that she was found away  from,  her home  at  a  distant place by a  wayside  railway  track  is consistent  with her traveling in the train on  the  fateful day.   The defence of the accused that he left for Delhi  on July 29, 1968 and "my 458 wife followed me with large gold and silver ornaments on her person  and  she was robbed and killed on the  way  is  most unnatural  and improbable and can safety be characterize  as false,  The accused was anxious to bring his wife home  from her father’s house.  He was returning to a distant place  by train  after  enjoying his leave and there  was  no  earthly reason  to leave this young wife behind to travel  alone  in the  train with "gold and silver ornaments"  with  attendant risks.   Then  again there is the, evidence of  Miss  V.  K. Sharma  (PW 2) to the effect that she "also understood  from tier  (deceased’s) talks, that she was proceeding  to  Sirsa with her husband".  She is an absolutely independent witness and there is no reason to disbelieve her statement.  She has no  animus against the accused nor can it be  accepted  that she had been. tutored by the police to give evidence in this case  against the accused.  The fact that  this  information was not recorded in the note Ext.  PA/2 would not affect the veracity  of  the  witness since her  comprehension  of  the deceased’s  talk was not otherwise challenged.  Nothing  has been  pointed out to show that this witness either  had  not mentioned  about  this  fact to  the  Investigating  Officer earlier or had stated something inconsistent with the  same. Then we have the evidence of Raghbir Singh (PW 29).   Ticket Collector,  Bhiwani.  It appears from his evidence that  the accused was detained on July 31, 1968, by him at the Station when he returned from the Booking Office after purchasing  3 1/2  tickets which according to the accused  were  necessary for  some  passengers  travelling in the  train.   From  his evidence it also appears that the accused had return-journey Railway Warrant.  Besides, when money was ’demanded from the accused  for  travelling without tickets ’of  those  34  1/2 persons from Sasni of Bhiwani he gave writing Ext.  PL dated 31-7-68 to him.  This witness is also an independent witness and has no enmity against the accused. We have no reason  to think that he will falsely implicate the accused after being tutored by the police, Kumar as suggested.  Further we  have the  evidence  of Yudishter (PW 26) who  states  About  the, approver,  Satinder Kumar and Bhanu Parkash Singh to him  at Sirsa  on July 31 at about 10.30 A.M. without  the  accused. He also stated that the accused came there at about 1.30 P.M the  same day.  His evidence, which is not even  Challenged. establishes  the story about the three persons  arriving  at Sirsa without the accused who had already used the train  at Bhiwani.   The  evidence of Shakti Parshaki Ghosh  (PW  17),

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

A.S.M.,  Sasni  Railwaily Station. mines  that  the  accused booked  his cycle No. RK- 162872 Make Road king from   Sasni to Sirsa on July 30, 1968, as per the forwarding noe.   Ext- PW 16/A (original Ext. 17/A) which fact is also proved by PW 16,  Surinder Kumar, A.S.M. PW 17 categorically states  that the accused came to him for booking the cycle and filled  in the  forwarding note.  It is pointed out that PW 17 did  not see the accused at the Railway Station at the arrival of the train as he went to the brake-van direct. it was not at  all natural  for  the  witness to follow the  movements  of  the accused after he bad booked the cycle.  There is. therefore, nothing unusual in his no noticing the accused later on  the arrival of the train. 459 We also find from the approver’s  evidence that the  accused went to the Doctor of the Air Force on August 4 to show  the burns  on   his hands.  This fact is deposed to  by  PW  50, sergeant  R.N Singh , who worked as a Medical  Assistant  in the  Unit  of  the First Aid Post at  the  Air  Force  Unit. According to him the accused came to him on August 4.  1968. at  about  7.00 A.M. and reported that both his  hands,  had acid  burns.  He also proved the endorsement to that  effect in the register (Ext. pT) maintained in the First Aid  Post. This fact is not denied by the accused and according to him, he had these burns as he, being a storeman, bad to deal with batteries  and some acid fell on his hands. and that is  why he  went  to PW 50 for treatment.  In his statement  in  the court recorded on April 25, 1969) after admitting the  above facts the accused also asserted that "there are no marks  of acid  burns on my hands now".  In cross-examination  of  Dr. Manocha  (PW 1) it was elicited that "the sulfur’ acid  bums if  superficial and not infected and treated immediately  in due course may not leave a mark. otherwise it should leave a mark".   In  view  of  this medical  evidence  there  is  no significance attached to the accused not having marks of the injuries on his hands after about nine months.  The injuries due  to a few accidental drops may even be superficial.   It is  Significant that PW 50 was not even cross-examined  with regard  to  the burns being caused by acid  from  batteries. The  accused’s  explanation that the acid from  the  battery caused  these  bums  on his hands is  absolutely  an  after- thought. An  approver  is  a most unworthy friend if at  all  and  he having bargained for his immunity, must prove his worthiness for credibility in court.  This test is fulfilled,  firstly, if  the  story  he relates involves him  in  the  crime  and appears intrinsically to be a natural and probable catalogue of  events  that  had taken place.  Ile story  if  given  of minute  details according with reality is Likely to save  it from  being rejected brevi manu.  Seconlly once that  hurdle is  crossed,  the story given by an approver so far  as  the accused on trial is concerned, must implicate him in such  a manner  as  to  give rise to a conclusion  of  guilt  beyond reasonable doubt.  In a rare case taking into  consideration all  the factors, circumstances and situations  governing  a particular  case,  conviction based  on  the  uncorroborated evidence  of  in approver confidently held to  be  true  and reliable  by  the  court may  be  permissible.   Ordinarily. however,  an approver’s statement has to be corroborated  in material  particular bridging closely the  distance  between the  crime and the criminal.  Certain clinching features  of involvement  disclosed by an approver appertaining  directly to  an  accused,  it reliable by  the  touchstone  of  other independent   credible  evidence,  would  give  the   needed assurance  for acceptance of his testimony on which  a  con-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

viction may be based. The approver here was a constant  companion of the  accused. He was arrested along with the accused on August 13.  He was in  police  custody till August 27 when he was sent  to  the jail  thereafter.  He wrote through the Jail  Superintendent to the Magistrate on August 29 460 expressing  willingness to give evidence as  "sultani  gawa" originally   (King’s   witness).   He   was   then   granted conditional   pardon  on  September  6  and   was   examined therefater  as a prosecution witness.  Every approver  comes to give evidence in some such manner seeking to purchase his immunity  and that is why to start with he is an  unreliable person  and  the  rule  of  caution  calling  for   material corroboration  is  constantly kept in mind by the  court  by time-worn judicial practice. Ignoring  for  a moment that PW 5 is an approver,  there  is nothing in his evidence to show that his statement otherwise is unreliable, unnatural or improbable.  There is nothing to show   that  he  had  on  any  earlier  occasion  made   any contradictory  statement on any material point.  It is  true that  an approver is a person of low morals for  the  reason that  he being a co-participator in the crime has  let  down his  companion.  As pointed out above it is for this  reason that  a rule of caution has grown whereby the court  has  to see if his evidence is corroborated in material  particulars connecting the accused with the crime. Judged by the principles mention above, the evidence of  the approver,  as  already set out, while  revealing  the  story stands  amply  corroborated by the facts deposed to  by  the above   independent  witnesses  in  certain   material   and clinching aspects connecting the accused with the crime.. To mention a few, the fact that the accused was  accompanied by  the  deceased wife is proved by the statement of  PW  2, Miss  Sharma.  That the accused got down at Bhiwani  Railway Station,  missed  the train and. therefore, had  to  arrive- Sirsa later in the afternoon is corroborated by PW 26.  That the  accused came by train on July 30, 1968 and not on  July 29, 1968, is also established by the evidence of PWs 16  and 17.   The accused booked his cycle at Sasni Railway  Station on  July 30, 1968 (vide PWs 16 and 17) and took delivery  of the same at Sirsa Railway Station of August 1 (vide PW  20). Then  again  the accused reported to PW 50  about  his  acid burns  on both the hands on August 4, 1968.  These are  some material  aspects in the case having great relevance to  the crime  committed  by  the  accused  and  are  disclosed   by independent and reliable witnesses.  It was not possible for the approver if he had not actually accompanied the  accused to  make  such  a detailed statement as he  has  done,  some material  parts of which find support from the  evidence  of the  aforesaid  witnesses.  We are,  therefore,  clearly  of opinion  that the approver’s evidence is not  only  reliable but  the same stands corroborated in several material  parts by  other reliable evidence from an independent source.   We are  also prepared to believe that the motive for the  crime was the illegitimate intimacy with Balbir Kaur. It  was then submitted by the appellant that in  a  separate trial  Bhanu Parkash Singh was acquitted by the High  Court. He  also  produced  the  judgment of  that  case  which  was pronounced  on  the same day as in the  present  case.   The learned  counsel for the appellant, however  frankly  stated that.  the High Court acquitted the accused.  Bhanu  Parkash Singh,  since  the approver’s evidence was not found  to  be corroborated  in  material  particulars.   That   acquittal, therefore cannot

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

461 at  all influence the decision against the  present  accused when  the  approver’s  evidence  is  amply  corroborated  in material particulars against him. The  learned  counsel  for the  appellant  relied  upon  the decision, of this Court in Lalta and Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (1) to support his submission that on the  principle of  issue-estoppel  conviction of the  appellant  cannot  be sustained because of the acquittal of Bhanu Parkash Singh, a co-accused,  although in a separate trial.  The crux of  the principle  of issue-estoppel may be stated in the  words  of Dixon, J. in The King vs.  Wilkes, (2) as follows               "Whilst there is not a great deal of authority               upon the subject, it appears to me that  there               is nothing wrong in the view that there is  an               issue  estoppel,  if it appears by  record  of               itself  or  as explained by  proper  evidence,               that  the same point was determined in  favour               of  a  prisoner in a previous  criminal  trial               which is brought in issue on a second criminal               trial of the same prisoner........ There  must               be  a prior proceeding determined against  the               Crown  necessarily  involving an  issue  which               again  a rises in a subsequent  proceeding  by               the Crown against the same prisoner". In  order to invoke the rule of issue-estoppel not only  the parties  in  the two trials must be the same  but  also  the fact-in-issue  proved  or not in the earlier trial  must  be identical  with  what  is sought to  be  reagitated  in  the subsequent trial. In  the  present  case the parties are the  State,  and  the accused, Ravinder Singh.  In the other case relied upon, the parties were the State and the accused Bhanu Parkash  Singh. Besides,  as even admitted by counsel, the approver was  not held  to be unreliable in that case while deciding the  case of  Bhanu Parkash Singh.  There is no inconsistency  between the  finding  that the approver’s statement  there  was  not materially  corroborated  by other  evidence  against  Bhanu Parkash Singh and the contrary finding in the affirmative in the  present  case  against Ravinder  Singh.   As  has  been observed  by  this  Court  in  Manipur  Administration   vs. Thokchom, Bira Singh, (3)  "issue-estoppel does not  prevent the  trial of an offence as does autre fois acquit but  only preclude,%  evidence being led to prove a fact in  issue  as regards      which  evidence  has already  been  led  and  a specific  finding  recorded  at an  earlier  criminal  trial before  a  court  of  competent  jurisdiction".   There  is, therefore.  no  substance in the submission of  the  learned counsel on the basis of issue-estoppel in this case. The Trial Court’s reasons for disbelieving the approver  did not find favour with the High Court and rightly so.  If  the incident  described  by  the approver had  taken  place,  as stated, there is nothing improbable or impossible about  it, if, judged by the standard of a cool person, the crime could not  have  been perpetrated in the manner disclosed.  it  is evident  there was some hatching for the crime and that  the opportunity (1)  [1969] 2 S.C.R. 526. (2) 77 C.L.R. 511 at 518. (3) [1964]-7 S.C.R.123 at 133 15-423SCI/75 462 to  perpetrate it was availed of in the manner done,  cannot be,  dismissed  as a fib.  The Trial Court  disbelieved  the evidence  of  Sampat  (PW  8)  with  regard  to  the   dying

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

declaration  of  Bimla implicating her husband.   The  Trial Court also observed that "there is no doubt in my mind  that the story of dying declaration is not genuine".  Even so the Trial Court relying upon the statement of Sampat (PW 8) with regard to the dying declaration observed that "the statement of  the approver, in my opinion, does not seem to be  true". Once  the evidence of Sampat has been rejected by the  court it  should not be made a basis for judging the  veracity  of other evidence by the yardstick of that unreliable evidence. The  Trial  Court fell into that error.   Again  the  reason given  by the Trial Court for the rejection of the  evidence of the Ticket Collector is also tenuous.  There is no reason why  the Ticket Collector would spin a story of his  own  if not  given  by  the  accused,  particularly  so  when,  even according to the,.-Trial Court, it does not fit in with  the number  of  tickets actually needed for the  journey.   This absence  of  any  attempt at padding of  the  evidence  goes rather to establish the truth of the testimony of the Ticket Collector.   The  Ticket  Collector  only  established   the presence of the accused at Bhiwani Railway Station coming by the  connecting train for Sirsa-Bhatinda.  Because of  these patent   infirmities  in  the  approach  of  the  case   and appreciation  of the evidence, the High Court was  right  in interfering with the order of acquittal passed by the  Trial Court. It  is  true that in an appeal against  acquittal  the  High Court  will be slow in interfering with the findings of  the Trial Court which has the opportunity to watch the witnesses while  giving evidence before it.  That may be largely  true where the Trial Court records remarks about the demeanor  of the witnesses.  Where, however, the prima facie appreciation of  the  recorded evidence is opposed to even  a  reasonable appraisement of the same bearing in mind the relevant  point or  points sought to be established by the  evidence,  there will  be  no  option to the High Court in  the  interest  of justice  to  step  in to do justice in the  case.   This  is exactly what the High Court has done in the appeal. We  have  considered the case from  both  the  stand-points- whether  the  High Court was right in interfering  with  the acquittal and also whether we would be justified to take the same  view  as  the  High Court  after  examination  of  the evidence afresh.  In addition to what we have found above if the  accused came in the train with his wife on the date  in question, about which we have not the ’slightest doubt,  his subsequent  conduct is a true tell-tale of his guilty  mind. We  are  absolutely  satisfied that  the  accused  has  been rightly  convicted  by the High Court.  In  the  result  the appeal fails and is dismissed. V.M.K.            Appeal dismissed. 463