Judgment [1] This order disposes of Cri, Apps. NOS. 624 and 684 of 1948. [2] Bachan Singh, Piara Singh and Ram Singh have been convicted under Section 393, Penal Code, and each of them baa been sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment. Bam Singh and Piara Singh appeal from their convictions and sentences. [3] The facts so far as material are given in the evidence of Gurbachan Singh p. W. 3. Shortly stated, the facts are that Gurbachan Singh approver p. W. 8 was called to village Lambi Dhab by Bachan Singh accused. He went there and on going to Lambi Dhab, he met Ram Singh and Piara Singh who were staying at the time with the said Bachan Singh. At the house of Bachan Singh all of them conspired to commit robbery and in pursuance of that conspiracy they left for village Mansingh Wala on 17-10-1947 to commit robbery in the house of Ajmer Singh p. w. 1. They were lost in the way during that night and on the next morning they reached village Kanewali where they remained daring that day. Late in the afternoon of 18-10-1947 they left village Kanewali for village Mansingh Wala, situate at a distance of a kos from village Kanewali. Beaching Mantingh-Wala they went to the house of Ajmer Singh and found Sadhu Singh p. w. 2 sitting outside the house along with two or three other persons. The case states that on a signal given by Bachan Singh, Bam Singh, Piara Singh and Gurbachan Singh took hold of Sadhu Singh and asked him to lead to his house. In the meanwhile, Ajmer Singh came from his house and protested against the treatment meted out to his son Sadhu Singh. Aimer Singh further said that they had come from the West Punjab and had nothing with them. Sadhu Singh was then let off by the culprits who slipped inside bis house and on account of fear taking the other members of his family with him he concealed himself. On the protest of Ajmer Singh, be too was let off but Bam Singh appellant along with Bachan Singh accused went inside the house of Ajmer Singh and fired shots from that house, but they did not find anything inside that house. Just then, firing began from other houses, and thereupon, the accused took to their heels and returned to village Kanewali. Just then, firing began from other houses, and thereupon, the accused took to their heels and returned to village Kanewali. The approver continues to state that Bachan Singh was reprimanded by his companions for taking them to the house of Ajmer Singh where nothing could be found whereupon Bachan Singh suggested that they should proceed to the house of Sardara Singh of village Gulabe Wala who possessed large amount of cash and gold. The party then proceeded to village Gulabe Wala. Beaching Gulabe Wala Bachan Singh who was armed with a 19 bore double barrelled gun entered the house of Sardara Singh at about 10.30 P. M. along with Gurbachan Singh approver. Bam Singh and Piara Singh stayed outside the house. Bachan Singh then fired a shot with his gun hitting Sardara Singh in his chest, but then firing began in that village from neighbouring houses and the culprits took to their heels from that village and proceeded towards village Lambi Dhab. [4] After the incident at village Gulabe Wala the culprits again remonstrated with Bachan Singh for having unnecessarily brought them to Gulabe Wala. Bachan Singh remained in village Lambi Dhab and Ram Singh, Piara Singh and Gurbachan Singh approver then proceeded during the night towards village Thande Wali and hid themselves in a sugar.cane field. [5] After the incident at Gulabe Wala, a track party was organised to follow the foot-steps of the culprits towards village Thande Wali. The track party followed the foot prints of the culprits to a sugarcane field in village Thande-Wali. [6] The approver then gives a lengthy account of the incidents which followed, but apart from the evidence of the approver there is nothing on the record about those incidents and indeed, we are not concerned in this case with what happened subsequently. [7] Before coming to the evidence examined at the trial, it is necessary to set out that the report of the incident that occurred in village Mansingh-Wala was made at the police station by Ajmer Singh P. W. 1 on 19-10-1947 at 4 P.M. The distance between Mansingh-Wala and Guru Har Sahai where the matter was reported is 10 miles. In the report Ex. In the report Ex. P. A. Ajmer Singh stated that he had learnt from Kohlu Singh of Kanewali that on 18-10 1947 Bachan Singh alias Bhappa of Lambi Dhab had taken meals for three or four persons from the house of Gurdial Singh, Jat of the village. He claimed that he would be able to identify the culprits if brought before him. [8] Now, Bachan Singh, Piara Singh, Ram Singh and Gurbachan Singh approver were arrested on 7 11-1947, 20-11.1947, 14-12 1947 and 1812.1917 respectively. Indeed, Gurbachan Singh approver stated at the trial that he appeared at Muktesar police station on is15-12-1947 in the afternoon and was taken into custody on that very day. According to the evidence given by Gurbachan Singh, P W. 3 he mentioned to the Sub-Inspector on 15 12 1947 that he was prepared to speak the truth if he was given pardon At the time of his appearance he produced a rifle which was taken into possession. [9] On 3-1-1948 Gurbachan Singh approver was tendered pardon and on the same day his confessional statement was recorded. [10] A parade was held on 8-21948 and at that parade Bachan Singh, Piara Singh and Ram Singh were put up for identification mixed with 17 other persons. At the parade Ajmer Singh p. W. 1 was called to identify the culprits, but he could not identify anyone of the persona as being the culprits. Sadhu Singh was then called and he correctly identified Piara Singh and Ram 8ingh while he incorrectly picked up Dhanna Singh saying that the culprits came to the village at about sunset and when he was sitting outside the house the culprits asked him to take them to his house. Gurbachan Singh was then put up for identification at a separate parade on the same day. Ajmer Singh P. W, 1 wrongly picked up Ajmer Singh and Sadhu Singh wrongly picked up Bachittar Singh as one of the culprits. [11] Now, Gurbachan Singh, p. w. 3 has made a statement at the trial implicating himself Bachan Singh, Piara Singh and Ram Singh in the crime at village Mansingh-Wala. The prosecution has also examined Ajmer Singh P. w. 1, Sadhu Singh P. w. 2, Kishen Singh p. W, 4 and Dalip Singh p. w. 5 in support of the prosecution. [12] At the trial the defence of the accused was denial simpliciter. The prosecution has also examined Ajmer Singh P. w. 1, Sadhu Singh P. w. 2, Kishen Singh p. W, 4 and Dalip Singh p. w. 5 in support of the prosecution. [12] At the trial the defence of the accused was denial simpliciter. Koer Singh D, \V. 1 was examined in defence. [13] Mr. R. L Kohli contends that no reliance can be placed in this case on the evidence given by the approver. He points out that the statement made by the approver that he voluntarily appeared before the police on 15-13-I947 is not credible and in any case it does not stand to reason that when Gurbachan Singh decided to surrender himself he would have produced a rifle that he carried on his person. He next points out that of the witnesses who have been examined at the trial not one of them has been able to identify Gurbachan Singh approver. Indeed, Ajmer Singh P W. 1 and Sadhu Singh P. W. 2 who were taken to the parade to identify Gurbachan Singh approver failed to identify the approver and wrongly picked up other persons. [14] Again, it is pointed out that according to his own showing, Gurbachan Singh approver was not known to Piara Singh and Ram Singh previous to the occasion when he met them in village Lambi Dhab at the house of Bachan Singh. It is significant, however, that as soon as Bachan Singh mentioned to Gurbachan Singh P. W. 3 the fact that they should commit robbery at Mansingh-Wala he agreed to join in the plan although he did not know Ram Singh and Piara Singh previously. [15] Then, it was pressed upon us that the evidence of Gurbachan Singh p. w. 3 suffers from a fatal defect, namely, that in his statement recorded in the Court of Mr. V.P. Malhotra, Magistrate first class, Ferozepore, on 23-7-1947 he stated that he had joined in the commission of the various crimes with Bhapa Singh Piara Singh and Bam Singh. In cross-examination he stated that Bhapa Singh who was his associate in the various Crimea was not Bachan Singh alias Bachan alias Bhapa of Lambi Dhab. In re examination in that statement he expressly stated that Bachan Singh son of Kehr Singh of Lambi Dhab was not with them in the attempted robbery at village Mansingh-Wala. In cross-examination he stated that Bhapa Singh who was his associate in the various Crimea was not Bachan Singh alias Bachan alias Bhapa of Lambi Dhab. In re examination in that statement he expressly stated that Bachan Singh son of Kehr Singh of Lambi Dhab was not with them in the attempted robbery at village Mansingh-Wala. For all these reasons, I find that the evidence given by Gurbachan Singh approver suffers from defects and very strong corroboration would be required to act upon his evidence. [16] Again, illus. (b) to Section 114, Evidence Act, requires corroboration in "material particulars" to rebut the presumption of untrustworthiness which ordinarily attaches to the testimony of an approver. It is not possible, indeed it would be in high degree dangerous, to attempt to formulate the kind of evidence which would be regarded as sufficient corroboration in a particular case. The nature and extent of the corroboration would depend upon, and vary with, the circumstances of each case, particularly the nature of the offence charged, the character and antecedents of the approver and the degree of suspicion attaching to his evidence. Suffice it to say that, it is now well settled that the minimum amount of corroboration required to make it safe to act on the testimony of an approver is, that his evidence must be corroborated not only as to the corpus delicti but also as to the identity of the accused persons. In other words, the corroborative evidence must show, or tend to show, that the story of the approver that the accused committed the crime is true and the evidence must be such which confirms not only the evidence that the crime has been committed but also the evidence that the accused committed it. (His Lordship considered the evidence and proceeded): [17] Considering these facts, I find that it would not be safe to act upon the evidence given by Sadhu Singh P. w. 2 in so far as it relates to the identification of Ram Singh and Piara Singh. [18] For the reasons stated above, I have come to the conclusion that the testimony of the approver has not been corroborated in any material particular by any reliable evidence so far as it relates to the participation of Earn Singh, Piara Singh and Bachan Singh in the incident of Man. singh Wala. [18] For the reasons stated above, I have come to the conclusion that the testimony of the approver has not been corroborated in any material particular by any reliable evidence so far as it relates to the participation of Earn Singh, Piara Singh and Bachan Singh in the incident of Man. singh Wala. That being so, I would allow the appeals of Piara Singh and Ram Singh and acquit them. Bachan Singh has not appealed, but as would appear from what is stated above the case against Bachan Singh is weaker than the case against Ram Singh and Piara Singh. An attempt was made in the evidence of Sadhu Singh P W. 2 to corroborate the evidence of the approver in so far as it relates to the participation of Ram Singh and Piara Singh in the crime in question. There is, however, not a syllable of evidence as regards the participation of Bachan Singh in the crime. Indeed, the statement of the approver is discrepant in so far as it relates to the participation of Bachan Singh. That being the state of record, I think it is a fit case for acting under Section 439, Criminal P.C. so far as Bachan Singh is concerned. A similar point came up for consideration in Mangal Singh v. Emperor A.I.R. (21) 1934 Lah. 346 : 35 Or. L.J. 1016. In that case, Mangal Singh has been found guilty of the murder of Bhagat Singh and sentenced to death under Section 302, Penal Code. Kapur Singh appellant and two other persons, namely, Dial Singh and Tara Singh had, however, been convicted under Section 460, Penal Code, and sentenced to transportation for life each. Mangal Singh and Kapur Singh preferred two separate appeals and the case of Mangal Singh was also before the Court under Section 371, Criminal P.C. for the confirmation of the capital sentence. Dial Singh and Tara Singh did not appeal against their convictions and sentences. On the finding that the participation of Kapur Singh in the burglary had not been established beyond all reasonable doubt, Kapur Singh was acquitted of the charge under Section 460, Penal Code. On that finding the Court of Appeal then dealt with the case of Dial Singh and Tara Singh, the non-appealing convicts. On the finding that the participation of Kapur Singh in the burglary had not been established beyond all reasonable doubt, Kapur Singh was acquitted of the charge under Section 460, Penal Code. On that finding the Court of Appeal then dealt with the case of Dial Singh and Tara Singh, the non-appealing convicts. Abdul Rashid J., who wrote the main judgment with which Sir Shadi Lal, C.J., concurred said: The convicts Dlal Singh and Tara Singh have not preferred any appeal to this Court. It was, however, held in the case of Crown v. Sadda, 11 Or. L.J. 99 : 4 I.C. 980 Lah. that the High Courts when dealing with cases in appeal or revision are competent to acquit an innocent person although he had failed to exercise the right of appeal. It hat been laid down in the case of T.R.S. Chari v. Emperor 12 Cr. L.J. 250 : 10 I.C.792 L.B .that in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can, on the appeal of one accused, deal with the sentences passed on the other co-accused who have not appealed. In that case, in the exercise of its revisional powers, the convictions and sentences of six accused person, who had not appealed, were set aside by the Lower Burma Chief Court. In the case of Broja Rakhal v. Empress 5 C W. N. 330 a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court held that the High Court had power under Section 439, Criminal F. C. in a proper case, to deal with the oases of accused persona not appealing against their convictions, while considering and trying the appeal preferred by some other persons; and Clause (5) of the section does not in any way affect the jurisdiction vested in the High Court to deal with their cases. After a careful examination of the evidence, I have arrived at the conclusion that the testimony of the approver has not been corroborated in any material particulars by any reliable evidence go far as Dial Singh Tara Singh convicts are concerned. In exercise of the revisional powers of this Court, I would, set aside their convictions and sentences; and order their immediate release. With great respect, I follow the rule laid down in Mangal Singh v. Emperor A.I.R. (21) 1934 Lah. 846 : 35 Cr. In exercise of the revisional powers of this Court, I would, set aside their convictions and sentences; and order their immediate release. With great respect, I follow the rule laid down in Mangal Singh v. Emperor A.I.R. (21) 1934 Lah. 846 : 35 Cr. L. 1046 and set aside the conviction and sentence of Bachan Singh and order his immediate release. [19] In the result, I allow the appeals of Bam Singh and Piara Singh and order their immediate release and acting under Section 439, Criminal P.C., I also set aside the conviction and sentence of Bachan Singh and order his immediate release. Das, C.J. [20] I entirely agree.