JUDGMENT 1. - D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 80 of 1974 filed by Gurnam Singh and D.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No 131 of 1974, preferred by Avtar Singh, arise out of one and the same judgment of the Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, dated January 17, 1974, by which each appellant was convicted under section 302 real with section 31 and 201, IPC and sentenced to under go imprisonment for life on the first count and on the second to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years. 2. The prosecution case against both the appellants was as follows Two days prior to September 11, 1972, at about 2 p.m , Gurnam Singh appellant met Karnail Singh, approver, at his house situated in 3 H, Choti. He had a bottle of liquor with him. Both Gurnam Singh and Karnail singh took in liquor. Under intoxication of wine, Gurnam Singh disclosed to the approver that he wanted to kill a person, Garnam Singh, however, did not disclose the name of the person to be murdered by him. Thereafter, he went to is house situated in Cheak 20 Z, the very day in the evening. Thereafter September 11, 1972, Gurnam Singh appellant accompanied by Avatar Singh appellant and Jeet Singh, deceased, came to the approver in the evening about one hour before the sunset. At that time the approver was plastering a temple. Gurnam Singh and his associates took one cot from a Sadhu and sat in the neighbouring field and began to drink wine : After sunset the approver finished his' work and joined Gurnam Singh and his companions in drinking wine. After taking in some liquor along with Gurnam Singh and his associates, the approver went to his house for taking bath & for preparing food. Then Jeet Singh, deceased, and Gurnam Singh appellant visited the approver's house. The approver asked them where Avatar Singh had gone. Thereupon, Gurnam Singh replied that he had gone to his house to call for Kulvir Singh. After some time Avatar Singh and Kulvir Singh also came to the approver's house. Gurnam Singh asked the approver to fetch wine from the shop. The approver brought liquor and all of them then consumed it Thereafter, the approver was again sent to purchase more wine. He brought about 1-1\2 bottles of wine, which also was taken in by all of them. Gurnam Singh asked the approver to fetch wine from the shop. The approver brought liquor and all of them then consumed it Thereafter, the approver was again sent to purchase more wine. He brought about 1-1\2 bottles of wine, which also was taken in by all of them. Thereafter, the approver brought half a bottle of wine again and all the five persons proceeded on foot towards 20 Z. On the way, near the house of one Gurdayal Singh, Jeet Singh, deceased, abused Avatar Singh appellant in a foul manner under intoxication of wine. Avatar Singh' also hurled abuses upon the deceased. The other persons asked them not to exchange filthy abuses. Avatar Singh and appellant thereafter 'proceeded towards 20z along with their companions. When they went about two 'Bighas away from the house of Gurdayal Singh, all of them again took in wipe 'and proceeded further. Jeet Singh, deceased,' was going a little ahead of I his associates. Behind him Avatar Singh was going having a lathi in his hand and he was followed by Gurnam Singh appellant, Kulvir Singh ' and the approver: Gurnam Singh had a 'Gupti' in his hand while Kulvir Singh was' armed with a 'Barcha', the approver was, empty handed. All of suddenly Avatar Singh appellant-struck a lathi blow on the back-side of the neck of Jeet Singh, deceased. As a result of this blow, Jeet Singh fell-down. Thereafter, Gurnam Singh appellant 'dealt two or, three blows with his 'Gupti' 'on the front side of his 'neck. 'Karnail Singh, approver, intervened and tried' to rescue the deceased. In the course of intervention, he received an injury, from the 'Gupti' of Gurnam Singh appellant. Gurnam Singh, appellant, thereupon, told the approver that' Jeet Singh was the person whom to be, a anted to, kill. Then Karnail Singh ' approver caught, hold of. the, legs of the deceased and Kulvir Singh (absconder) inflicted two blows on the stomach of Jeet Singh with his 'Barcha' Thereafter, all, the four assailants dragged Jeet Singh at a distance' of about 1-1\2 Bighas towards 3 H. Choti and brought him to a water-channel which had some water in it. The deceased was again dragged along with the water-channel towards the village. The assaillants found life in the deceased.' So Gurnam Singh asked his companions to drown Jeet Singh in the water. The deceased was again dragged along with the water-channel towards the village. The assaillants found life in the deceased.' So Gurnam Singh asked his companions to drown Jeet Singh in the water. Then they threw the, body' of Jeet Singh into the water and stood, over it for some time. Jeet Singh breathed his lass. Then the dead body was taken out of water and tied with the bush-shirt and trousers of the deceased and the piece of cloth of Avatar, Singh appellant was tied to the lathi and 'Barcha' and was carried away to a canal through the fields and 'Kutcha' routes to the canal half filled 'with water. The dead body was then thrown into the canal. Kulvir Singh, absconder, and Avatar Singh, appellant, thereafter went' to their village H. Choti along with Gurnam Singh. The approver also went from there' to, the house of one Ratna' Chamar and slept there.- On the ' next day in the morning, the approver came to his house from the house 'of Ratna Chamar. When he reached his house, he saw Gurnam Singh appellant standing there. Gurnam Singh asked the approver to go to the place where Jeet Singh' was murdered and to see that no clue of murder was left there. The approver went on bicycle to the place where Jeet Singh was murdered and found the nicker of the deceased lying on the ground near the road. When the approver was locking at the nicker Phurnan Singh asked him what he was doing. The approver replied that the nicker wEs of Jeet Sirgh who had been murdered by Gurnam Singh, Kulvir Singh and Avatar Singh. Then Karnail Singh apurcver came back to his house leaving the nicker there. At his house he told Gurnam Singh appellant that the nicker of the deceased was lying there tut he could not pick it up as Phuman Singh was there. Thereupon, Gurnaam Singh picked the approver to go with him and to inform the father of Jeet Singh. Gurnam Singh and the approver went on bicycle to village 20 Z and met Niranjan Singh, father of Jeet Singh deceased in the latter's field. Gurnam Sirgh appellant disclosed to Niranjan Singh, father of the deceased, that his son Jeet Singh had been murdered by Kulvir Singh, absconder, Avatar Singh and the approver. Gurnam Singh and the approver went on bicycle to village 20 Z and met Niranjan Singh, father of Jeet Singh deceased in the latter's field. Gurnam Sirgh appellant disclosed to Niranjan Singh, father of the deceased, that his son Jeet Singh had been murdered by Kulvir Singh, absconder, Avatar Singh and the approver. Niranjan Singh told Gurnam Singh, appellant, that he had taken his son, Jeet Singh along with him from the village and that he was murdered. Then Niranjan Singh along with Gurnam Singh appellant and the approver went to the place where Jeet Singh was murdered. He saw Jeet Singh's nicker lying there. He noticed marks of dragging also. Meanwhile other inhabitants of the village also reached there and Niranjan Singh accompanied by Gurnam Singh rushed to the police station for making a report. He lodged a first information report about the incident of murder with the police at police station, Chunawad, on September 13, 1972 at 11 30 a.m. The report contained all the facts disclosed to him by Gurnam Singh appellant. On the basis of the report Biiju Singh, Head Constable, registered a criminal case under section 302 read with section 34, IPC, and sent a copy of the report to the Station House Officer at Ganganagar for investigation. He rushed to the place of occurrence for supervision of the site. Inder Singh, Station House Officer on receipt of the copy of the first information report took up the usual investigation into the matter and reached the place of occurrence along with the Circle Officer. He inspected the dead body of Jeet Singh, prepared a 'Panchnama' Ex.P. 7 and the inquest report Ex P 6. He prepared the site plan and the site inspection memo at the instance of the father of the deceased and took blood stained earth ano one nicker, i.e. 'Kachha' of the deceased into his possession. Then he seized the piece of cloth, bush-shirt and the pieces of trousers also and recorded the statements of Niranjan Singh, Hari Das and Phuman Singh The dead body of Jeet Singh was sent to the Medical Jurist, General Hospital, Sri Ganganagar, for post-mortem examination. Dr. M.P. Agrawal, conducted an autopsy over the dead body at 12.30 p.m. He found the following external injuries on the body of Jeet Singh : "1. soft tissue swelling 3"x 2" on the right cheek in front of the ear. Dr. M.P. Agrawal, conducted an autopsy over the dead body at 12.30 p.m. He found the following external injuries on the body of Jeet Singh : "1. soft tissue swelling 3"x 2" on the right cheek in front of the ear. There was bleeding from the right car; "2. incised wound 1/4"x ⅛" bone deep with fracture of mandible 3/4" on the left side of the chin (transverse); "3. incised wound 3/4"x ⅛" x bone deep (oblique) on the centre of the inferior aspect of the chin; "4. bruise with abrasion irregular 21/2"x 11/4" on the left side of the neck anterio-laterally, with a second bruise 1/4"x 1/4"x 1/4" medial to the preceding one near the Icentre of the neck anteriorly; "5. bruise with abrasion 21/2"x 2" on the left side of forehead; "6. bruise l"x 1/41' on the anterior aspect of left shoulder (vertical); "7. incised wound 11/4"x3/4"x peritoneal cavity deep (vertically oblique) with omentum protruding out, 3" below and on right side of the umbilicus on anterior abdominol wall on right iliac region: "8. incised wound 11/2"x 1/2" x peritoneal cavity deep (transverse) on the left side of supra pubic region; "9. bruise multiple abrasion 19"x9" (vertical) on the left side of whole back of chest, lumber region and iliac and gluteal region; "10. bruise with multiple abrasions 9"3" on the right side of the chest lower 1/4"; "11. bruise with multiple abrasions all over the right scapular region 5"x 3" ; "12. incised wound 1/2" 14" abdominal cavity deep on the right lumber region of the back. There were soft tissue haematoma over the right tempo-parietal region. There was fracture of the petrus part of the right temporal part of the bone Membranes and the brain were congested. There was haemorrhage in the right fossa. There was haemorrhage also in soft tissues in the left side of the neck. Larynx and trachae were congested. Both the lungs were congested and frothy. Froth mixed with blood was coming out of the mouth and nostrils. On pressing the chest stomach was found empty and congested Mesentry of the colon and caecum showed perforation and haemorrhage in the mesentery and injury No. 7 Liver, spleen and kidney were congested. Larynx and trachae were congested. Both the lungs were congested and frothy. Froth mixed with blood was coming out of the mouth and nostrils. On pressing the chest stomach was found empty and congested Mesentry of the colon and caecum showed perforation and haemorrhage in the mesentery and injury No. 7 Liver, spleen and kidney were congested. In the opinion of the Medial Jurist, the cause of death of Jett Singh was asphyxia, had injury with fracture, base of skull, intracranial haemorrhage and shock with multiple injuries In the opinion of the Doctor, the injuries found on the dead body were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of Jeet Singh. Then he handed over the investigation to Sadhu Singh, ASI as he had to go outside for giving evidence in some other case Sadhu Singh arrested Karnail Singh, approver, and Curnam Singh appellant vide memos of arrests Exs. P 14 and P. 1.5 respectively and handed over the investigation again to the Station House Officer upon his return on October 1, 1972. The Station House Officer got Karnail Singh medically examined as to his injuries and then went on leave from October 10, 1972. Thereafter, his successor Harnam Singh, S.H.O. made investigation into the case. In the course of investigation, Avatar Singh, appellant, gave him an information, while in custody, on November 30, 1972, that he had concealed one lathi in a cluster of reeds and that he was prepared to get it recovered at his instance. The Station House Officer recorded the above information in a memo Ex. P 16 and recovered the lathi at the instance of Avatar Singh, appellant, and in consequence of his information The lathi was seized and scaled by Harnam Singh in the presence of Mothers There-after pardon was granted to Karnail Singh who turned an approver in this case. Kulvir Singh accused could not be arrested as he was absconding. So a challan was filed against him under section 512, old Cr.PC Harnam Singh, Station House Officer, filed a charge-sheet against Gurnam Singh and Avatar Singh appellants also in the court of the Additional Munsiff and Magistrate First Class, Sri Ganganagar, under sections 302, 201/34, IPC. Kulvir Singh accused could not be arrested as he was absconding. So a challan was filed against him under section 512, old Cr.PC Harnam Singh, Station House Officer, filed a charge-sheet against Gurnam Singh and Avatar Singh appellants also in the court of the Additional Munsiff and Magistrate First Class, Sri Ganganagar, under sections 302, 201/34, IPC. The learned Magistrate held an inquiry, preparatory to commitment, and upon finding a prima-facie case exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, committed both the appellants to the court of the Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, for trial under section 302 and 201, IPC and in the alternative under section 302 read with section 34, IPC. 3. The Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, tried both the appellants for the aforesaid offence and found them guilty under section 302/34 and 201, I.P.C. and sentenced them in the manner stated above. Aggrieved by their convictions and sentences both the appellants have preferred separate appeals in this Court. As both the appeals are directed against one and the same judgment of the Session Judge and as common questions of law and facts are involved in both of them, they are disposed of together by our one judgment. 4. We have carefully perused the record and heard Mr. Than Chand Mehta, for Gurnam Singh, B.R Arora, appearing on behalf of Avatar Singh and Mr. N.S. Achaiva, Public Prosecutor, for the State of Rajasthan assisted by Mr. M.L. Garg, Advocate. It has been contended on behalf of the appellants that the evidence of Karnail Singh, approver, is highly incredible in itself and apart from the statement of the approver, there is no evidence that he also played some important role in the commission of the crime. It was further urged that even if the approver is held to be a reliable witness, his evidence with respect to the part played by the appellants in the crime stands uncorroborated by any evidence coming from independent source. The Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, argued that the approver is a reliable witness and there is ample corroboration of his statement with regard to the facts of the case and to the identity of the offenders who participated in the commission of the crime. 5. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival contentions. The Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, argued that the approver is a reliable witness and there is ample corroboration of his statement with regard to the facts of the case and to the identity of the offenders who participated in the commission of the crime. 5. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival contentions. Before dealing with the evidence of the approver, we may observe that under Sections 133, Evidence Act, clearly lays down that an accomplice is a competent witness against an accused person and conviction can be based on his testimony, if the court is satisfied that it is true and reliable, but there is a rule of evidence provided in illustration (b) to section 114 of the Evidence Act, which the court should not ignore. The rule in illustration (b) to section 114 of the Evidence Act is that the court may presume that an accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless his testimony is corroborated in essential particulars. The general result, therefore, is that in almost all cases the presumption that an accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless corroborated in essential particulars, has became a rule of practice, which cannot be easily departed from, unless the circumstances of a particular case justify the exception. 6. As regards the nature and the extent of the corroboration required under illustration (b) to Sections 114 of the Evidence Act, the Supreme Court formulated certain rules for guidance which are lucidly expounded by their Lordships in Jnanendra Nath v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1959 SC 1199 , and Bhiva v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 SC 599 . Their Lordships held in the former case that the nature and the extent of the corroboration required by this rule of caution vary with the circumstances of each case. What is required is that there must be come additional evidence from the side of the prosecution which may render it probable that the story given out by the approver is true and that it may be safely acted upon in convicting the accused. What is required is that there must be come additional evidence from the side of the prosecution which may render it probable that the story given out by the approver is true and that it may be safely acted upon in convicting the accused. The additional evidence must, however, come from some independent source and must be concerning the crime and connecting each and every accused with the crime, but it is not essential that the statement of the approver must independently be confirmed in each and every material particular because in such a case the independent evidence could itself be sufficient to sustain conviction apart from the evidence of the accomplice. To put it into nut-shell, it may be observed that the evidence proceeding from independent source must be such as to lend assurance that the story given by the accomplice is truthful quaeach accused. 7. Keeping these principles in view, we have carefully examined and scrutinised the evidence of Karnail Singh, approver and found it incredible in itself, for the following reasons: "1. Karnail Singh admitted in his cross examination that he was kept inside the police station for 27 or 26 days and during this period he was beaten by Sadhu Singh, Station House Officer, Chuuawad, who applied electric current also to his body for exhorting a confessional statement, but he did not make any statement. Thereafter, he was sent to judicial lock-up. The above admission made by the approver in his statement casts a serious doubt upon voluntary nature of his statement. Apart from this, the statement of the approver was recorded under section 164, Cr.PC about two weeks after he expressed his desire to become an approver in the case. No reasonable explanation is forth coming from the side of the prosecution for this inordinate delay in recording the statement of the approver. "2. Karnail Singh approver had no personal enmity with or grudge against the deceased. He clearly admitted that Gurnam Singh appellant had not even dissolved the name of the person whom he wanted to kill, to Karnail Singh prior to the occurrence. "2. Karnail Singh approver had no personal enmity with or grudge against the deceased. He clearly admitted that Gurnam Singh appellant had not even dissolved the name of the person whom he wanted to kill, to Karnail Singh prior to the occurrence. Hence his assistance in the commission of the crime by Gurnam Singh was uncalled for, because, if Gurnam Singh wanted to seek some help from the approver in killing the deceased, he would have surely disclosed the name of the deceased whom he wanted to kill, to Karnail Singh in the course of talks with the latter which took place prior to the occurrence. "3. Karnail Singh's statement at the trial is that he first intervened to rescue the deceased when he was attacked by Avatar Singh and Gurnam Singh appellants but when he was told by Gurnam Singh that the deceased was the person whom he wanted to kill, he left the idea of intervention and claimed to have participated in the commission of the crime. This conduct of the approver is highly abnormal, especially when he had no personal animosity against the deceased. "4. According to the statement of Karnail Singh, approver, the deceased was all alone, unguarded and having no arms with him at the time when assault was made on him. He was attacked by four persons who were armed with weapons. In that situation, it is not believable that the approvement felt the necessity of catching hold of his legs when Kulvir Singh. absconder, had inflicted blows on his body with a sharp-edged 'Barcha'. It appears that the story narrated by the approver that he caught hold of the legs of the deceased when Kulvir Singh absconder had inflicted 'Barcha' blows on his body is a cooked-up story to make the court believe that he was an associate in crime and was consciously connected with the criminal act done by his companions. According to his own statement, Avatar Singh, appellant, was the first person who dealt a lathi blow on i he back side of the neck of Jeet Singh, deceased, as result of which the latter fell down. If his statement is taken to be true at its face value, this injury caused to the left side of the neck of the deceased was itself fatal according to the opinion of Dr. If his statement is taken to be true at its face value, this injury caused to the left side of the neck of the deceased was itself fatal according to the opinion of Dr. M.P. Agarwal, who performed post mortem examination over the dead body of Jeet Singh. The Doctor definitely opined that the cause of Jeetsingh's death was asphyxia, head injury with fracture, base of skull intra-cranial haemorrhage and shook with multiple injuries. This injury was individually sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of the deceased. After this injury was caused to the deceased by Avatar Singh with a lathi, Gurnam Singh appellant struck further blows on his neck with his 'Gupti'. According to the statement of the approver, the deceased was disabled by these injuries. After infliction of these serious injuries, there was no necessity of catching hold of the legs of the deceased by the approver and Avatar Singh, appellant, so as to enable Kulvir Singh (absconder) to inflict further blows on the stomach of Jeet Singh with a 'Barcha'. This part of the story given out by the approver is highly unconvincing. "5. The approver further gave a fantastic account of the manner in which the deceased was done to death. According to his version the deceased did not die even after the receipt of the fatal injuries on his neck, head and abdomen. So he was dragged to a water channel (Khala) and all the four assailants including the approver jumped over his body in a bid to put an end to his life. It was further stated by the approver that thereafter the body was taken out of the 'Khala' and thrown into a canal having shallow water. According to the medical evidence, the death of the deceased did not occur due to drowning. The Doctor definitely opined that as phyxis in this case was not the result of drowning. "6. Karnail Singh approver claimed to have gone to the peace of occurrence at the instance of Gurnam Singh on the next day in the early morning after commission of the crime to find out whether there were some symptoms of murder at the spot. When he reached the place of occurrence, he saw one nicker of the deceased lying on the ground. When he reached the place of occurrence, he saw one nicker of the deceased lying on the ground. When he was locking at the nicker, Phuman Singh, PW 1, who was standing at some paces away from the approver, asked the latter what had happened. There upon, the approver replied that the nicker was of Jeet Singh, who had been killed by Gurnam Singh, Kulvir Singh, and Avatar Singh. It is highly unbelievable that on the mere asking by Phuman Singh who was neither a friend, nor a relative of the approver, the approver made disclosure that the deceased had been done away with by Gurnam Singh, Kulvir Singh & Avatar Singh. Curiously enough, Avatar Singh did not confess before Phuman Singh that he also participated with the aforesaid three persons in the commission of the crime of murder. A part from this the approver made a further statement, which is highly unbelievable that after disclosing to Phuman Singh that, Jeet Singh had been murdered by Gurnam Singh, Avatar Singh and Kulvir Singh, he went away from there and met Gurnam Singh appellant and told-him that he bad discussed his name to Phu man Singh as one of the murderers of Jeet Singh. Upon hearing that his name had been, disclosed to Phuman Singh as one of the murderers of Jeet Singh, Gurman Singh did not become angry with or did not show any temper to the approver. On the other hand, according to the statement of the approver, Gurnam Singh merely stated in a light mood that nothing would happen. In the normal course of human conduct, Gurnam Singh would have become furious or at least angry with the approver upon having come to know that his name had been disclosed to Phuman Singh as one of flit murderers of Jeet Singh. "7. Another circumstance which throws considerable doubt on the credibility of the statement of the approver is that approver is that in portion A to B of his statement Ex. D.1 made by him to the police before ho was tendered pardon and with which he was confronted at the trial, he did not state that he had accompanied Gurnam Singh, Avatar Singh, Kulvir Singh and the deceased when they started for going to village 20 Z from his village. D.1 made by him to the police before ho was tendered pardon and with which he was confronted at the trial, he did not state that he had accompanied Gurnam Singh, Avatar Singh, Kulvir Singh and the deceased when they started for going to village 20 Z from his village. On the other hand, his statement before the police was that be stayed at his house and after some time Gurnam Singh returned to his house and informed him that Jeet Singh had been beaten by Kulvir Singh and Avatar Singh with 'Barchas' and on seeing him so beaten, he (Gurnam Singh) had come back out of fear to the house of the approver. The approver further stated to the police that in the night Gurnam Singh stayed with him at his house and out of fear both of them did not inform any person in the village about the beating administered to Jeet Singh, deceased, by Kulvir Sirgh and Avatar Singh with 'Barchas'. When confronted with portion A to B of his statement Ex. D.1, Karnail Singh, approver, merely stated that he could not give such a statement before police. The statement made by Karnail Singh approver to the Investigating Officer in the course of investigation before be was tendered pardon stands on the same footing as a previous statement made by any other witness and it could be used to contradict him when he appeared as witness in the trial court to give evidence against the appellants. Hence, the contrary statement made by the approver in the trial court that he accompanied Gurnam Singh, Avatar Singh, Kulvir Singh and the deceased, when they started from his village for going to 20 Z and that in the way he along with these persons committed the murder of Jeet Singh and throw his dead body into a canal is false and unreliable. "8. There is further contradiction on a material point between the statement of the approver at the trial and his statement Ex. D.2 before the committing court. The contradiction is that in his statement at the trial, the approver stated that two days prior to September 11, 1972, i.e. on September 9, 1972, Gurnam Singh appellant had come to his house situated in village 3 H. Choti and disclosed to him that be wanted to kill a person. D.2 before the committing court. The contradiction is that in his statement at the trial, the approver stated that two days prior to September 11, 1972, i.e. on September 9, 1972, Gurnam Singh appellant had come to his house situated in village 3 H. Choti and disclosed to him that be wanted to kill a person. In his statement Ex.D. 2 before the committing court the approver, on the other hand, stated that Gurnam Singh had come to his house on September 11, 1972, and disclosed to him that be wanted to murder one person. When confronted with portion A to B of his statement Ex D 2, the approver merely stated that he did not remember whether he stated before the committing court that Gurnam Singh had visited his house on September 11, 1972. In this manner the approver has made inconsistent statements on material points. 8. The above infirmities shown in the statement of the approver are' in our opinion, capable of rendering his statement incredible in itself. 9. Assuming that the statement of the approver is credible in itself, there is no reliable evidence other than the statement of the approver that he himself had participated in the commission of the crime. Phumansingh P.W.1, did not say in his deposition that the approver disclosed to him that he also played some part in the crime of murder of Jeet Singh along with Avatar Singh and Gurnam Singh appellants. He merely stated that Karnail Singh informed him that Gurnam Singh and Avatar Singh had killed Jeet Singh. Likewise, Niranjan Singh, P.W 4, father of the deceased, no where stated in his deposition that Karnail Singh' approver, confessed before him that he also played some role in causing the death of the deceased. Thus the approver's part in the grime in not corroborated by any evidence other than the statement of the approver himself. 10. To prove that the version given nut by the approver that he received injuries on his hand with the 'Gupti' of Gurnam Singh when he was trying to rescue the deceased corroboration is sought by the presence of as many as three injuries found on his body up in medical evidence by Dr. 10. To prove that the version given nut by the approver that he received injuries on his hand with the 'Gupti' of Gurnam Singh when he was trying to rescue the deceased corroboration is sought by the presence of as many as three injuries found on his body up in medical evidence by Dr. M.P. Agrawal on September 23, 1972 It was no doubt true that Dr.M.P. Agrawal P.W.11, examined Karnail Singh, approver, on September 23, 1972, on police requisition and found the following injuries on his persons: "1. partially healed wounds two marks 1/4" Linear near the tip and other ⅓" x linear near the proximal part of the distal phalsax of the right thumb on palmer aspect along the long axis of them humb. "2. partially healed abrasion (transverse) 11/2"x linear on the centre of the palm. Both the injuries were simple and were caused by a sharp-edged weapon and their duration, in the opinion of the Doctor, was within 10 to 14 days. But the question for consideration is whether these injuries were received by the approver in the course of assault made on the deceased by the appellants and whether these injuries could be caused by a weapon like 'Gupti'. Dr. M P. Agrawal admitted in his cross-examination that these injuries could not be caused by a 'Gupti' if both of its edges were sharp and it was grasped in the hand. Apart from this, the presence of these injuries at the time of the arrest of the approver was highly doubtful as is evident from the statement of Sadhu Singh, PW 6 and Inder Singh, Station House Officer, PW 9. Sadhu Singh, A.S.I. categorically denied the presence of any injury on the body of the approver at the time of his arrest. His statement at the trial is that when he arrested Karnail Singh. approver, there were no injuries on his body. Likewise Inder Singh, SHO clearly admitted in his cross-examination that when Karnail Singh was produced before him on September 13, 1972, he did not see any injury on his body, n3r did the approver tell him that he had received any injury. Inder Singh further stated in his cross examination that thereafter on September 14, 15 and 16, 1972, also Karnail Singh did not tell him that he had sustained any injury, nor did he tee any injury on his body. Inder Singh further stated in his cross examination that thereafter on September 14, 15 and 16, 1972, also Karnail Singh did not tell him that he had sustained any injury, nor did he tee any injury on his body. It was on September 23, 1972, that Karnail Singh disclosed to the Station House Officer that be had received injuries. Inder Singh then no-iced some superficial scratches on the hand of the approver. In view of these facts, it is highly doubt full whether the approver had sustained injuries with a 'Gupti' in the course of assault made on the deceased as alleged by him in hiss statement at the trial. 11. The next question that falls to be considered is whether the evidence of the approver is corroborated by some independent evidence both with regard to the offence and the part played by the appellants in the crime. Upon careful review of the entire evidence led by the prosecution on the record, we are of the view that the statement of the approver is not only incredible in itself but it also stands uncorroborated in material details not only with regard to the incident narrated by him, but also with regard to the part played bi other accused in the crime, Karnail Singh approver stated in his deposition that when he visited the place of occurrence on the next day in the morning at the licence of Gurnamsingh appellant, he found one nicker i.e. Kachha of the appellant lying on the ground. When he was looking at the nicher Phuman Singh PW 1 was standing at a distance of 2 or 4 paces away from him. Phuman Singh asked him what had happened. Then the approver claimed to have disclosed to Phuman Singh that the nicker belonged to Jeet Singh who bad been killed by Gurnam Singh, Kulvir Singh & Avatar Singh. Thereafter, the approver left the nicker there and came back to meet Gurnam SiLgh. Then Gurnam Singh and the approver went on bicycle to inform the father of of the deceased. They met Nirarjan Singh in his field and informed him that his son, had beta killed by Kulvir Singh and Avatar Singh and brought him to the place where the nicker of the deceased was lying. Then Gurnam Singh and the approver went on bicycle to inform the father of of the deceased. They met Nirarjan Singh in his field and informed him that his son, had beta killed by Kulvir Singh and Avatar Singh and brought him to the place where the nicker of the deceased was lying. The approver further stated that Tiranjan Singh, father of the deceased, made enquiries from Phuman Singh, PW 1, who, upon being questioned, disclosed to the former that he was informed by the approver that Jeet Singh had been killed by Kulvir Singh, Avatar Singh and Gurnam Singh. This fact finds no corroboration from the evidence of Phuman Singh, PW 1, who denied to have met Nirarjan Singh, father of the deceased, when he visited the place where 'Kachha was lying, along with the approver and Gurnam Singh. The relevant statement given by him on this point, when translated into English, reads as follows: "Niranjan Singh and others came to the place where 'Kachha' was lying. I did not go there nor did I tell them anything. Niranjan Singh and others did not call for me from my field, nor did they enquire about anything from me" A similar statement has been given by Niranjan Singh, PW 4. He also admitted in his cross-examination that Phuman Singh, PW 1, was ploughing his field at a distance of about ore Bigha from the place where the 'Kachha of the deceased was lying but Phuman Singh did not come and talk to us, nor did he approach him, nor did he talk to him (Phuman Singh), nor did Phuman Singh disclose to him anything about the occurrence. In this manner, the statement of the approver stands contradicted by the independent evidence of Phuman Singh and Niranjan Singh. 12. Karnail Singh, approver, further stated in his deposition that when the deceased fell down as result of the blows ii flitted on the back side of his neck by Avatar Singh, with a lathi, Gurnam Singb struck two or three blows with a 'Gupti' on the front side of the neck. In his cross-examination he further stated that the blows dealt by Gurnam Singh with his 'Gupti' were tbiust and piercing blows. This part of the approver's statement does not receive corroboration from the evidence of Dr. In his cross-examination he further stated that the blows dealt by Gurnam Singh with his 'Gupti' were tbiust and piercing blows. This part of the approver's statement does not receive corroboration from the evidence of Dr. M P. Agrawal, who performed post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and who did not find any penetrating or piercing wound on the front side of the neck of the deceased. From a bare perusal of the statement of Dr. M.P. Agrawal, it appears that the deceased had an incised wound on the left side of the chin with fracture of the menoible and another incised wound on the centre of the inferior aspect of the chin. The other incised wounds Nos. 7, S and 12 were not ascribed to Gurnam Singh by the appellants as they were not on the neck or any part near about it. If according to the statement of the approver, Gurnam Singh had caused two or three thrust blows with his 'Gupti' there would have been penetrating or piercing wounds on the front side of the neck t or the chin of the deceased or on any part near about them. Dr. M.P. Agrawal clearly stated in his cross-examination that incised wounds Nos. 2 and 3 on the left side and on the centre of the inferior aspect of chin were possibly caused by some very sharp-edged weapon. Hence, it is highly doubtful whether these injuries could be caused by a 'Gupti' which, generally, is not a very sharp-edged weapon, but is a pointed weapon. 13. The approver further stated in his deposition at the trial that before starting for village 20 Z, the deceased consumed considerable quantity of liquor twice or thrice and in the way also shortly before the occurrence he again took in liquor along with the appellants but this fact is not corroborated by the evidence of Dr. M P. Agrawal, who clearly stated that no alchohel was found in the stomach of the deceased at the time of post-mortem examination on September 13, 1972, at 5 30 p.m If the deceased had drunk liquor shortly before his death, at least some liquor would have been found in his stomach Corroboration of the approver's testimony from independent source is lacking in respect of the other details with regard to the offence and the offenders. 14. 14. Apart from this, the statement of Phuman Singh, PW 1, from which corroboration of the approver's testimony is sought, is absolutely unworthy of credence for the following reasons : "1. Phuman Singh was examined by the police four days after the occurrence. "2. The police came to his village and he knew about the arrival of the police but he did not disclose to the police that he was informed by the approver that Jeet Singh had been done to death by Gurnam Singh, Avatar Singh and Kulbir Singh. "3. Curiously enough, he did not disclose this fact to Niranjan Singh, father of the deceased also, whom he saw standing at the place where the nicker of the deceased was lying, on the next day of the occurrence, nor did he tell the father of the deceased drinking wine with Gurnam Singh, Avatar Singh and the approver at about sun-set before the occurrence. 15. For the reasons stated above, we may safety hold that there is no material corroboration of the approver's evidence both with regard to the offence and the offender. Hence, the conviction of the appellants could not be sustained on the testimony of Karnail Singh approver, as the approver was not shown to be a reliable witness and as there was no sufficient corroboration of his testimony from independent source on some material particulars. 16. As regards conviction of the appellants for the offence under Sections 201, IPC it may be observed that there is no evidence other than the statement of the approver that the appellants caused any evidence of the commission of the offence of murder to disappear with the intention of screening themselves from legal punishment while knowing or having reasons to believe that the murder of Jeet Singh had been committed. As stated earlier, the statement of the approver is incredible in itself and stands uncorroborated by any independent evidence in some material particulars. In this view of the matter, the conviction of the appellants under section 201, IPC is unsustainable. 17. Consequently, we are of the view that prosecution utterly failed to bring guilt home to the appellants under section 302/34 and 201, I.P.C. beyond reasonable shadow of doubt. In this view of the matter, the conviction of the appellants under section 201, IPC is unsustainable. 17. Consequently, we are of the view that prosecution utterly failed to bring guilt home to the appellants under section 302/34 and 201, I.P.C. beyond reasonable shadow of doubt. The result is that we accept the appeals filed by Gurnam Singh (D B Criminal Appeal No. 90 of 1974) and Avatar Singh (D.B Criminal Jail Appeal No. 131 of 1974), set aside their convictions and sentences under sections 302/34 and 201, I.P.C and acquit them of the same. Avatar Singh appellant is in jail. He shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required in connection with some other case. Gurnam Singh appellant is already on bail. He need not surrender to the bail bonds which are hereby discharged.Appeal accepted. *******