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.