JUDGMENT 1. :- This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganager dated January 25, 1979 convicting the accused Jagdisingh under sections 302. 201 and 397, I.P.C. and sentencing him to imprisonment for life and rigorious imprisonment for five and seven years on the respective counts. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. The succinct facts leading to the prosecution and conviction of the accused are as follows. 2. Bhagirath Jat the deceased victim in the case- was a wealthy peasant residing with the members of his family in his Dhani which he had raised in his field situate in Mauja Chawk 31-F Arayan district Sri Ganganager. He owned considerable agricultural land of 14 or 15 Murabas. He used to wear gold bangles and gold rings. He also used to keep some money with him. The appellant and PW 11 Butasingh are also residents of village Arayan. Greed over took them and they hatched a plan on January 4, 1977 to rob Bhagirath and finish him for ever. They waited for a suitable opportunity and started keeping a watch on the movements of Bhagirath. At about 5.00 P. M. on August 5, 1977, PW 11 Buta Singh went to the shop of the appellant and both of them took liquor. While taking liquor at about 7.00 P. M., they noticed Bhagirath going towards the school building. The appellant suggested that it was an opportune time to follow Bhagirath and execute the plan. Both of them went from there to the shop of Harnamsingh and waited for the return of Bhagirath. After 15-20 minutes, Bhagirath came and proceeded on the way leading to his Dhani. The appellant gave a signal to PW 11 Butasingh and both of them followed Bhagirath. The appellant took a sword (Kripan) with him. Bhagirath was going a few yards ahead of the appellant and Butasingh. When Bhagirath reached on the bridge of Minor Canal-F, the appellant and Butasingh over-took him. The appellant took out the sword from the sheath and struck a blow with it on the neck of Bhagirath. Bhagirath fell down. Thereafter the appellant again struck two or three blows with his sword to Bhagirath. There was profuse bleeding from the wounds of Bhagirath. The appellant and Buta Singh relieved him of his gold bangle. two gold rings, a currency note of Rs. 100/- and some documents. Bhagirath fell down. Thereafter the appellant again struck two or three blows with his sword to Bhagirath. There was profuse bleeding from the wounds of Bhagirath. The appellant and Buta Singh relieved him of his gold bangle. two gold rings, a currency note of Rs. 100/- and some documents. They then lifted Bhagirath and threw him in the running water of the canal. Bhagirath had a walking stick with him at that time. They also covered the blood with the soil which had scattered there on the spot. From there, the appellant and PW 11 Butasingh came to their village and washed their clothes. The gold rings, documents and the currency note were kept by PW 11 Butasingh while the gold bangle was taken by the appellant. Since the gold bangle was of huge valuation than the two gold rings, it was decided between them that they would sell it and divide the money so obtained between themselves. Next day, both of them went to Sri Ganganagar and contacted the goldsmith Balchand (PW 5). They wanted to sell the gold bangle to him. but Balchand refused to purchase it till they brought some person with them who could properly verify their antecedents. The appellant and Butasingh could not procure any such person. From Ganganagar, both of them came to their village. In the way, the appellant suggested that he had some acquintance with Jaswantsingh Sonar of Kesarisinghpur and that he would go to him to sell the bangle PW 11 Butasingh alone came to the village while the appellant went to Kesarisinghpur. He gave that gold bangle to Jaswantsingh Sonar on August 8, 1977. 3. On August 8, 1977, the dead body of a Hindu male was found infested in the bridge of the canal running near Chak-4 ED. PW 23 Bhansingh, who is a resident of that village, went to police station, Gajsinghpura and reported the matter at about 11.00 A. M., which was reduced into writing in EX P 25. The Station House Officer Balveersingh (PW 24) went on the spot, got the dead body out of the canal and prepared the inquest report EX. P 25. The photographs of the dead body were taken as the dead person could not be identified. The clothes of the dead body viz., Kurta, Dhoti and Baniyan, three keys and one Dibbi were seized and sealed. P 25. The photographs of the dead body were taken as the dead person could not be identified. The clothes of the dead body viz., Kurta, Dhoti and Baniyan, three keys and one Dibbi were seized and sealed. The medico-legal autopsy of the dead body was conducted on the same day by PW 20 Dr. O. P. Sharma the then Medical Officer Incharge, Primary Health Centre, Raisinghnagar. The doctor noticed the following ante-mortem injuries:"External- (1) Incised wound 8" x 2" x deep upto vertibrae, transverse on the base of head with neck on posterior side. (2) Incised wound 8" x 2" x bone deep, transverse cutting the occipital bone on the occipital area of head. (3) Incised wound 6" x 11/2" x bone deep cutting the maxilla on left side through left ear extending from gum to the posterior side of ear (left) and cutting the ear. (4) Incised wound 7" x 11/2" and bone deep on the right side maxilla cutting the maxilla and ear, transverse. (5) Lacerated wound on right hand at the level of metacarpal phalangeal joint in the size of full width of hand. No blood clotting was found in this injury. Hence it was post-mortem in period and looked like as if it had been created by the eating of animals. (6) Lacerated wound on the junction of 1st and 2nd metacarpo-phalangeal joint of the side of both joints. There was no clotted blood in this injury and it was also, therefore, post-mortem in duration. Internal- (1) There were injuries on his scalp and that the occipital bone had also been cut transverse by some sharp weapon. The brain of the deceased was found liquified and shrunken. (2) In the thorax region walls, ribs and cartileges and pericardium were found healthy while pleaura and heart were found decomposed. The larynx and trachea were found containing mud particles mucus reddened and the right and left lung decomposed, liquified and shrunken. No abnormality was detected in the large vessels. (3) In the abdominal region, skin was found peeling off on the walls. Liver, spleen, kidneys, bladder and organs of generation, external and internal, were found decomposed. The peritonium was also found decomposed. Tounge was found swellen and in between the teeth. Stomach was found containing mud particles and in a decomposed condition. Similarly small intestines were also found containing mud particles. Liver, spleen, kidneys, bladder and organs of generation, external and internal, were found decomposed. The peritonium was also found decomposed. Tounge was found swellen and in between the teeth. Stomach was found containing mud particles and in a decomposed condition. Similarly small intestines were also found containing mud particles. The large intestines was found containing stool matter in very small quantity. (4) Regarding the fracture on the body of the deceased, a 6" long cut. transverse was found in the occipital bone and right and left sides of maxilla were also found cut." 4. In the opinion of Dr. Sharma, the cause of death was asphyxia. The post-mortem examination report issued by him is EX. P 18. 5. In continuing narration, when Bhagirath did not reach his Dhani, hectic efforts were made to search him out. The members of his family went to different sillages, but no where-abouts of Bhagirath could be traced out. Meantime, the members of his family came to learn that some blood was detected on the bridge of canal F-Minor. Jaimalsingh (PW I)- who is a nephew of Bhagirath, went to the concerned Police Station, Kesarsinghpur and verbally lodged report EX. P 1, stating therein that Bhagirath was missing since August 5, 1977. A case under section 364, I.P.C. was registered. The inquest report and the site plan etc., prepared by Balveersingh (PW 24) while conducting the inquest of the dead body, were obtained by the S. H. O. P. S. Kesarsinghpur. Rumours were afloat that the appellant and Butasingh had committed the murder of Bhagirath. The appellant Jagjitsingh was arrested at about 3.00 P. M. on August 18. 1977. After his arrest he promptly came out with the disclosure statements EX. P 12. EX. P 13 and EX. P14. In these statements, he disclosed that he had given the gold bangle to goldsmith Jasvantsingh and had hidden his sword and clothes in his house. The appellant thereafter took the investigating officer and the Motbirs to various places and got the gold bangle, the sword and his clothes recovered from different places and persons. The investigating officer also went to canal F-Minor and found the blood on the cemented floor of the bridge. It was lifted and sealed. PW 11 Butasingh surrendered before the investigating officer on August 21, 1977. The investigating officer also went to canal F-Minor and found the blood on the cemented floor of the bridge. It was lifted and sealed. PW 11 Butasingh surrendered before the investigating officer on August 21, 1977. He also came out promptly with the disclosure statements, in consequence of which two gold rings and some documents were recovered from his house. The gold bangle and the clothes found on the victim's dead body were put to test identification and they were correctly identified to be of Bhagirath by his nephew-son and widow. The levere of cement, blood-smeared soil, sword. Dhoti and Kurta and other articles were sent for chemical examination. Human blood was detected on the sword recovered at the instance of the appellant and Dhoti and Kurta of the deceased Bhagirath. On the completion of investigation, the police presented a challan against the appellant Jagjitsingh and PW 11 Butasingh in the Court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Karanpur. Pardon was tendered to PW 11 Butasingh and he was made an approver. Before the Magistrate, he gave a detailed-statement as to how he and the appellant committed the murder of Bhagirath and relieved him of his personal belongings. The learned Magistrate committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions. The case came for trial before the Additional Sessions Judge. Sri Ganganagar. He framed charges under sections 302, 302 34, 201 and 397. I.P.C. against the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty. According to him, he has been falsely implicated by PW 11 Butasingh as he (appellant) had illegal intimacy with his (Butasingh's) wife. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 25 witnesses and filed some documents. The material exhibits were also produced. On the conclusion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held the charges tinder sections 302, 201 and 397, I. P. C. duly proved against the appellant. The appellant was consequently convicted and sentenced as mentioned at the very outset. Aggrieved against his conviction and sentence, accused Jagjitsingh has come-up in appeal. 6. We have heard Shri M. R. Bhansali-the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor assisted by Shri S. R. Singhi. We have also gone through the case file carefully. 7. The appellant was consequently convicted and sentenced as mentioned at the very outset. Aggrieved against his conviction and sentence, accused Jagjitsingh has come-up in appeal. 6. We have heard Shri M. R. Bhansali-the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor assisted by Shri S. R. Singhi. We have also gone through the case file carefully. 7. In order to bring home guilt to the appellant, the prosecution has led the following sets of evidence: (a) direct testimony of the approver Butasingh (PW 11); (b) the recovery of various articles viz. gold bangle and the blood (human) stained sword in consequence of the disclosure statement made by the appellant; (c) the recovery of the various articles viz. two gold rings and documents etc. in consequence of the disclosure statement made by the approver Buta Singh (PW 11); (d) blood was found at the place of the commission of the crime; and (e) the appellant and the approver made efforts to sell the gold bangles to the gold-smith Balchand (PW 5) at Ganganagar. 8. Evidence (b), (c), (d) and (e) has been adduced as affording independent corroboration to the material particulars of the appellant's statement. 9. Launching a blistering attack on the judgment of the trial court, it was argued by Mr. Bhansali that the conviction is wholly bad and unsustainable in law. The various sets of evidence relied upon by the trial court are not sufficient to warrant the conviction. For ease and convenience, the contentions advanced by Mr. Bhansali may be summarised as under: (1) 'Corpus delicti' has not been established; (2) the accomplice Butasingh (PW 11) is a thoroughly unreliable witness who has been won over and bribed by the prosecution by tendering pardon to him; (3) the various recoveries are false and planned. The disclosure statement attributed to the appellant and the approver were never made by them; (4) though blood was found on the place of occurrence, it was not human; and (5) the evidence of Balchand (PW 5) was falsely procured. It would be proper to deal with these contentions at seriatim.Re : l- Corpus delicti - 10. It was argued by Mr. Bhansali that there is no evidence to establish corpus delicti. There was absolutely no material to show that the dead body found in the Mokha of canal near Chak 4-ED was that of Bhagirath Jat. It would be proper to deal with these contentions at seriatim.Re : l- Corpus delicti - 10. It was argued by Mr. Bhansali that there is no evidence to establish corpus delicti. There was absolutely no material to show that the dead body found in the Mokha of canal near Chak 4-ED was that of Bhagirath Jat. It was argued that it cannot be said with certainty that Bhagirath Jat is alive or dead. It was also argued that the dead body found in the Mokha was in an advance state of decomposition. As such, the claim of the witnesses to identify that corpse by its photographs should not be accepted. The clothes, which the dead body was wearing, are of ordinary pattern commonly available in the villages. As such, the identification of the dead body by its clothes is also not free from risk. We are unable to accept the contention. The dead body was found infested in the Mokha of the canal near Chak 4 ED on August 8, 1977, Balveersingh (PW 24), who was the S.H.O. at P. S. Gajsinghpur, stated that on receiving the information mentioned in Ex. P 25. he went to the bridge of canal 4-ED and got the dead- body out of the canal. He prepared the inquest report Ex. P 26. The dead body was wearing Dhoti (Article 5) Banivan (Art. 6) and Kurta (Art. 7). He seized and sealed these articles. One Dibbi and three keys were also found in a pocket of the Kurta of the dead body. They were also seized. The photographs of the victim were taken which are Ex. P2, P3, P4 and P5. Jaimalsingh (PW1) is the real nephew of the deceased Bhagirath Jat. He deposed that the dead body shown in these photographs is that of his uncle Bhagirath Jat. He further deposed that the clothes-Dhoti (Art.5), Baniyan(Art.6) & kurta (Art.7) as well as the Dibbi (Art.4) are that of his uncle Bhagirath Jat. He used to wear these clothes and keep the Dibbi with him. PW2 Smt. Bakhtawari is the widow and PW8 Prithvi is the son of the deceased Bhagirath Jat. They deposed that the aforesaid clothes are of Bhagirath Jat. He used to wear them. These clothes were identified by these witnesses in the test identification conducted on August 25. 1977 by the Judicial Magistrate Shri Murlidhar Goswami (PW 21). PW2 Smt. Bakhtawari is the widow and PW8 Prithvi is the son of the deceased Bhagirath Jat. They deposed that the aforesaid clothes are of Bhagirath Jat. He used to wear them. These clothes were identified by these witnesses in the test identification conducted on August 25. 1977 by the Judicial Magistrate Shri Murlidhar Goswami (PW 21). Of course, no other clothes were mixed up in the test-identification with these clothes. But that bears no material consequence. The substantive evidence of identification is that which is given in the Court. The test identification memo is Ex, P 21. It is true that these are ordinary clothes, but the members of the family. who used to constantly see them, can identity them without difficulty. PW 1 Jaimalsingh, PW 2 Smt. Bakhtawari and PW 8 Prithvi are the nephew, widow and son of Bhagirath Jat. They, therefore, used to see him wearing these clothes. As such, they are in a position to identify these clothes even though they did not bear any distinguishing mark. In Junjarsingh v. State of Rajasthan 1976 Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 386 the dead body was identified by the relatives of the deceased- victim after seeing the clothes which the deceased used to wear. It was held that distinguishing marks are not necessary on the clothes in order to correctly indentify them to be of the deceased person. In Hamchandra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh, A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 381 , their lordships held that there may be reliable evidence-direct or circumstantial-of the commission of the murder though the corpus delicti is not traceable. Thus, what is required to establish 'corpus delicti' is the fact of murder, which amply stands proved in the instant case. 11. We had a look into photographs EX. P 2 and EX. P 3. They show that the person shown in them can be easily identified by his face. The face is prominent and clearly visible in these two photographs. 12. Apart from that, there is the evidence of PW 1 Jaimalsingh, PW 2 Mst. Bakhtawari and PW 8 Prithvi the Bhagirath Jat never returned to the house since August 5, 1977. Hectic efforts were made to trace him out, but the attempts proved abortive. PW 11 Butasingh, who is the approver, has stated that Bhagirath Jat was done to death by him and the appellant. Bakhtawari and PW 8 Prithvi the Bhagirath Jat never returned to the house since August 5, 1977. Hectic efforts were made to trace him out, but the attempts proved abortive. PW 11 Butasingh, who is the approver, has stated that Bhagirath Jat was done to death by him and the appellant. As will be seen while dealing with the testimony of this witness, his testimony plays a prominent role in assessing the guilt of the appellant. Taking all these sets of evidence together, it can be safely said that the dead body found infested in the Mokha of canal 4-ED was that of Bhagirath Jat. 13. It was argued by Mr. Bhansali that the offence, according to the approver, took place on the bridge of canal F-Minor while the dead body was found in canal 4-ED. How the dead body reached from one canal to the other canal has not been explained by the prosecution. That should be taken to be a reason that the dead body found infested in canal 4-ED was not that of Bhagirath Jat. We are unable to subscribe the view placed before us. It is in the knowledge of every body that the canals form a net work. There is the main canal. Various sub-canals are taken from it. The sub-canals are then divided in Minor canals. They are marked with different numbers at different places. The site plans EX. P 8 and EX. P 24 of canal F-Minor and canal 4-ED show that the flow of water in both the canals is from East to West. It can be, therefore, easily gathered that both these canals are not different canals but one and the same. It appears that canal 4-ED is a distributory of the canal F-Minor. 14. In case of homicide, death of the victim is the corpus delicti. It is true that in a case of homicide, corpus delicti must be established. It is also true that corpus delicti is not established by a mere showing of absence or disappearance of the alleged victim. Death of the victim must be proved like any other fact. In the instant case as discussed above there is plenty of evidence to establish the corpus delicti that Bhagirath Jat was done to death. There is the direct evidence of approver Butasingh (PW 11). Death of the victim must be proved like any other fact. In the instant case as discussed above there is plenty of evidence to establish the corpus delicti that Bhagirath Jat was done to death. There is the direct evidence of approver Butasingh (PW 11). the identification of the dead body by its photographs and the clothes found on the dead body made by the widow, son and nephew of Bhagirath Jat. We, therefore, feel no hesitation in rejecting the contention of Mr. Bhansali that there is no proof of corpus delicti in the instant case.Re:2 - The testimony of approver Butasingh (PW 11) 15. It was strenuously contended before us that the approver Butasingh (PW11) is a thoroughly unreliable witness. He has been falsely introduced as a witness by tendering a pardon to him. The tendering of pardon to him is the bribe which the prosecution offered to him. It was argued that Butasingh has the worst animus against the appellant. Admittedly, according to this witness, the appellant was in illegal intimacy with his (witness's) wife. Naturally, therefore, the approver was interested in falsely implicating the appellant in order to get rid of him. It was argued that once the confession of the approver was recorded, he was bound to stick to it because of the penal consequences mentioned in Section 308, Cr. P.C. In case be resiled from his confessional statement, he was liable to prosecution. It was urged that the testimony of the approver should, therefore, be Judged in the light of these circumstances. 16. The evaluating, weighing and assessing the evidence of an approver has always been a stupendous and hazardous task before the courts. Perhaps no witness in our country has been more criticised than an approver and he has been labelled as infamous and notorious witness. The approver is generally held untrustworthy because of the various taints and blames on his lead, viz., (1) being a 'particeps criminis' he is an immoral person and may discard the sanctity of oath, (2) he has been bribed by the prosecution in the shape of granting a pardon to him. In order to enjoy the immunity from being prosecuted. the approver must stick to his confessional statement inculpating himself and fellow offender. In order to enjoy the immunity from being prosecuted. the approver must stick to his confessional statement inculpating himself and fellow offender. In case he resiles from his confessional statement, the immunity ends and he is liable to the prosecution in accordance with the provisions of Section 308, Cr. P. C. and (3) he has betrayed his associate with whom he was hand and gloves. It is why he has, been characterised as an infamous, notorious and immoral witness, who is likely to swear falsely in order to shift the guilt from himself. In order to maintain the gift of pardon he may even weave false details to suit the purpose of the prosecution. Despite all these taints and blames, his testimony plays a significant role in a criminal case. In case he is a real 'particeps criminis', he has the inside knowledge of the crime and is fully aware of all the facts leading to its commission. 17. An accomplice in crime is tendered pardon and is made an approver out of the necessity. There are cases like the instant one in our hand in which it may be impossible without having recourse to such evidence to bring the other offenders to justice. This is the reason which arose from sheer necessity that Section 306. Cr. P. C. has been inserted in the Code, to tender pardon to an accomplice and make him approver to obtain his evidence against his fellow offenders. 18. Section 133 of the Evidence Act lays down that conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeded upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. But, at the same time the law-makers gave a discretion to the Courts because in all cases, the accomplice may not be found a reliable witness. In order to meet such a situation, illustration (b) was inserted in section 114 of the Evidence Act, which reads as under: "that an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless he is corroborated in material particulars." Section 30 of the Evidence Act makes the confession of an accused admissible against the co-accused and such a confession may be taken into consideration not against the co-accused as well as against its maker. Thus, while weighing the evidence of an approver, Sections 30, 133 and 114 (illustration 'b') should be read together. 19. We may refer to the various judicial pronouncements made on the point. Thus, while weighing the evidence of an approver, Sections 30, 133 and 114 (illustration 'b') should be read together. 19. We may refer to the various judicial pronouncements made on the point. In Aung Hla and others v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1931 Rangoon 235 , in which judgment was delivered by a Special Bench of three Judges, principles were laid down as to how the testimony of an approver is to be weighed and evaluated. This authority throws considerable light on the point involved. It was observed : "The effect of Sections 3, 30, 133 and 114 read with Illus. (b), which are to be read together is: (1) that an accused person can legally be convicted upon the uncorroborated evidence of an approver; (2) that whether an accused person should or should not be convicted upon such evidence is left to the prudence and good sense of the tribunal after considering all the circumstances of the case : (3) that prima facie the evidence of an approver being tainted evidence is unworthy of credit unless it is corroborated in some material particulars, tending to show that the accused committed the offence with which he is charged; (4) that it is for the Court to determine in the particular circumstances of each case whether the "matter" before it tending to corroborate the evidence of the approver (which may or may not be evidence strictly so called and as defined in the Evidence Act) is worthy of evidence against the accused and acted upon; (5) that the evidence of an approver may be corroborated by the evidence of another approver or by the confession of a person who is being tried jointly with the accused for the same offence implicating both himself and accused; (6) that it is the duly of the Court to scrutinise with care such corroboration as that mentioned in (5); but that whether it be treated as evidence against the accused or not is to be determined by the Court having regard to the circumstances of the case." 20. In Harun Haji Abdullah v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 832 , it was observed by their lordships: "The law as to accomplice evidence is well-settled. In Harun Haji Abdullah v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 832 , it was observed by their lordships: "The law as to accomplice evidence is well-settled. The Evidence Act in S. 133 provides that an accomplice is a competent witness against an accused person and that a conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. The effect of this provision is that the Court trying an accused may legally convict him on the single evidence of an accomplice. To this there is a rider in illustration (b) to S. 114 of the Act which provides that the Court may presume that accomplice is unworthy of credit unless he is corroborated in material particulars. This cautionary provision incorporates a rule of prudence because an accomplice, who betrays his associates, is not a fair witness and it is possible that he may, to please the prosecution, weave false details into those which are true and his whole story appearing true, there may he no means at hand to sever the false from that which is true. It is for this reason that courts. before they act on accomplice evidence, insist on corroboration in material respects as to the offence itself and also implicating in some satisfactory way however small, each accused named by the accomplice. In this way the commission of the offence is confirmed by some unconfirmed testimony of the accomplice and the inclusion by the accomplice of an innocent person is defeated. This rule of caution or prudence has become so ingrained in the consideration of accomplice evidence as to have almost the standing of a rule of law." 21. In Shesbanna Bhumanna Yada, v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1970 S. C. 1330 , their lordships observed as under: "The warning of the danger of convicting on uncorroborated evidence is given when the evidence is that of an accomplice. The primary meaning of accomplice is any party to the crime charged and some one who aids and abets the commission of crime. The nature of corroboration is that it is confirmatory evidence and it may consist of the evidence of second witness or of circumstances like the conduct of the person against whom it is required. Corroboration must connect or tend to connect the accused with the crime. The nature of corroboration is that it is confirmatory evidence and it may consist of the evidence of second witness or of circumstances like the conduct of the person against whom it is required. Corroboration must connect or tend to connect the accused with the crime. When it is said that the corroborative evidence must implicate the accused in material particulars, it means that it is not enough that a piece of evidence tends to confirm the truth of a part of the testimony to be corroborated. That evidence must confirm that part of the testimony which suggests that the crime was committed by the accused. The first test of reliability of approver and accomplice evidence is for the court to be satisfied that there is nothing inherently impossible in evidence. After that conclusion is reached as to reliability, corroboration is required." 22. In Ravindra Singh v. State of Haryana, A.I.R. 1975 S. C. 856 , it was observed: "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 catelogue of events that had taken place. The story if given of minute details according with reality is likely to 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 touch-stone of other independent credible evidence, would give the needed assurance for acceptance of his testimony on which a conviction may be based." 23. Certain clinching features of involvement disclosed by an approver appertaining directly to an accused, if reliable, by the touch-stone of other independent credible evidence, would give the needed assurance for acceptance of his testimony on which a conviction may be based." 23. In Dagdu and others v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1977 S. C. 1579 , it was observed by their lordships: "Though an accomplice is a competent witness and though a conviction may lawfully rest upon his uncorroborated testimony, yet the court is entitled to presume and may indeed be justified in presuming in the generality of cases that no reliance can be placed on the evidence of an accomplice unless that evidence is corroborated in material particulars, by which is meant that there has to be some independent evidence tending to incriminate the particular accused in the commission of the crime. It is hazardous. as a matter of prudence, to proceed upon the evidence of a self-confessed criminal who, in so far as an approver is concerned, has to testify in terms of the pardon tendered to him. The risk involved in convicting an accused on the testimony of an accomplice, unless it is corroborated in material particulars, is so real, and patent that what during the early development of law was felt to be a matter of prudence has been elevated by judicial experience into a requirement or rule of law. All the same, it is necessary to understand that what has hardened into a rule of law is not that the conviction is illegal if it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice but that the rule of corroboration must be present to the mind of the Judge and that corroboration may be dispensed with only if the peculiar circumstances of a case make it safe to dispense with it." 24. As regards the corroboration it was observed by their lordships as under in (8) S. Swamiratna v. State of Madras, A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 340 : "A corroboration of an approver's evidence need not be of a kind which proves the offence against the accused. It is sufficient if it connects the accused with the crime." 25. As regards the corroboration it was observed by their lordships as under in (8) S. Swamiratna v. State of Madras, A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 340 : "A corroboration of an approver's evidence need not be of a kind which proves the offence against the accused. It is sufficient if it connects the accused with the crime." 25. Thus, the law is well settled that it is risky to base the conviction of the accused only on the uncorroborated testimony of the approver Of course, the statute (Section 133 of the Evidence Act) permits the conviction on the uncorroborated testimony of the approver, but in practice, it is rarely justified. The conviction can be based on the sole testimony of an approver only in rare of the rarest cases. The rule of corroboration has hardened into a rule of law. Let us now. turn to the testimony of the approver Butasingh (PW 11). He and the appellant are the residents of the same village Arayan. The deceased Bhagirath Jat was also a resident of the same village though he resided in the Dhani he had raised in his field. PW 11 Butasingh deposed that the appellant met him on August 4, 1977 and told him that his father had separated him and he was unable to meet even the household expenses. The appellant further suggested that Bhagirath Jat was a wealthy person who kept ready money with him and used to wear the gold bangle. He further suggested that Bhagirath Jat should be killed and he be relieved of his valuables. The witness stated that he agreed to the proposal. It was settled between them that the valuables will be divided half and half between them. Next day, on August 5, 1977, at about 5.00 P.M. he (witness) went to the shop of the appellant. The appellant brought a bottle of wine. Both of them took liquor. It was 7.00 P. M. by then. When they were taking the liquor, they noticed Bhagirath Jat going towards the school building. The appellant suggested that it was an opportune time to execute the plan. The appellant followed Bhagirath Jat came back after ten or fifteen minutes and told him that Bhagirath Jat was sitting at the house of Karta Ram. From the shop of the appellant both of them viz. he and the appellant went to the shop of Harnamsingh. The appellant suggested that it was an opportune time to execute the plan. The appellant followed Bhagirath Jat came back after ten or fifteen minutes and told him that Bhagirath Jat was sitting at the house of Karta Ram. From the shop of the appellant both of them viz. he and the appellant went to the shop of Harnamsingh. There also they took the liquor and waited for Bhagirath's return. After 15-20 minutes, Bhagirath came in the way leading to his Dhani. The appellant gave a signal to him. Both of them viz. he and the appellant got up and went to the house of the appellant. The appellant went inside his house and came out with a sword (kripan) in his hand. Both of them then followed Bhagirath Jat. Bhagirath Jat was nearly 11/2 Murabas ahead of them. When they reached the bridge of the canal, the distance between them and Bhagirath remained only of ten paces. As soon as Bhagirath reached the central bridge, the appellant went to him, took out his sword from the sheath and struck a blow with it on the neck of Bhagirath. Bhagirath fell down. The appellant struck two or three more blows with his sword to Bhagirath. Thereafter the appellant and he (witness) relieved him of his belongings. The appellant took the gold bangle while he took two gold rings. The witness further stated that Bhagirath had a currency note of of Rs. 100/- which he took out and kept with him. He further stated that there were some documents also in the pocket of the Kurta of Bhagirath. He took those documents. There was profuse bleeding from the wounds of Bhagirath, which had spread on that spot. Both of them i. e. he and the appellant thereafter threw Bhagirath in the running water of the canal. As the blood of the wounds of Bhagirath had spread on the spot, they spread sand on it. From there, both of them returned to the village. The clothes of the appellant got stained with blood which he had washed. The witness further continued that he and appellant went to Ganganagar to sell the gold bangle. The reason was that it was weighing four tolas while the rings were of lesser value. At Ganganagar both of them went to the shop of a goldsmith. The clothes of the appellant got stained with blood which he had washed. The witness further continued that he and appellant went to Ganganagar to sell the gold bangle. The reason was that it was weighing four tolas while the rings were of lesser value. At Ganganagar both of them went to the shop of a goldsmith. That goldsmith saw the gold bangle and agreed to purchase it, provided they brought some-body to identify them. They spent the currency note of Rs. 100/- at Ganganagar in drinks and eating. Since they could not find any such person, they left Ganganagar to return to their village. In the way, the appellant suggested that he would go to Kesarsinghpur to sell the gold bangle as he had a goldsmith of his acquintance there. The appellant went towards Kesarsinghpur and he came to his village. Later on, the appellant told him that he had given the told bangle to Jaswantsingh Sonar at Kesarsinghpur to convert in into ornaments. When the ornaments would be received. they would be divided half and half. He further stated that after some days, the appellant was arrested by police. He got afraid and remained roaming about to hide himself. After two or three days he surrendered himself before police. The police arrested him. After his arrest, he furnished information to the police and got the gold rings Article 1 and Article 2 recovered from his house which he had taken from Bhagirath. He also produced the documents before the police. He was cross-examined at length, in his cross-examination, he very plainly admitted that the appellant was having illicit intimacy with his wife. Despite lengthy cross-examination, nothing could be elicited from him which may make his testimony unworthy of belief or credence. It may be pointed out that prudence pardon was tendered to him and he was made an approver after the recovery of the incriminating articles, i. e. gold rings and documents of the deceased-victim. 26. Mr. Bhansali wants us to disbelieve this witness on two counts. The first is that according to the witnesses, the occurrence took place on the bridge of canal F-Minor. The investigating officer Prem Narain (FW 16) visited this bridge on August 16, 1977 and found blood spread on some portion of the cemented floor of the bridge. He lifted that blood-stained cement levere from there. The first is that according to the witnesses, the occurrence took place on the bridge of canal F-Minor. The investigating officer Prem Narain (FW 16) visited this bridge on August 16, 1977 and found blood spread on some portion of the cemented floor of the bridge. He lifted that blood-stained cement levere from there. This levere of cement was sent for chemical examination. Though it was found stained with blood, but it could not be ascertained whether it was human blood. It was contended that in view of this finding of the Serelogist, it cannot be said that the offence was committed at the place stated by the approver. We are unable to accept the contention. Report Ex. P. 36 of the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Rajasthan, Jaipur shows that the cemented levere was found stained with blood. The report of the Serologist is Ex. P 37. It shows that the origin of the blood could not he determined because the stains were disintegrated. In our opinion. the report of the Serologist does not help the appellant in any way. The origin of the blood on the levere of cement could not be determined as the blood-stains were found disintegrated. If the investigating officer wanted to plant the blood on the alleged place of occurrence, he could have done so by spreading some human blood there. Report Ex. P 37 of the Serologist does not show that the blood on the levere of cement was not human. The prosecution should not suffer simply because the origin of the blood could not be determined owing to the blood-stains being disintegrated. 27. The next ground urged is that as per the medical evidence, blood was found clotted on some of the injuries of the deceased-victim. It was argued that the deceased was thrown in the running canal. As such, clotting of blood could not have taken. This is sufficient to belie the witness. We are again unable to accept the contention. According to the witness, injuries were inflicted to Bhagirath by the appellant with a sword. With the infliction of the first blow on the neck, Bhagirath fell down. Thereafter some more blows were caused to him with the sword by the appellant. It was thereafter that Bhagirath was relieved of his valuables and documents. Some time, at least 10 to 15 minutes. must have taken place in this entire process. With the infliction of the first blow on the neck, Bhagirath fell down. Thereafter some more blows were caused to him with the sword by the appellant. It was thereafter that Bhagirath was relieved of his valuables and documents. Some time, at least 10 to 15 minutes. must have taken place in this entire process. The clotting takes place within 5 to 7 minutes. Thus, the clotting had taken place before the body of Bhagirath was thrown in the running water of the canal. Clotting once formed may continue and may not be washed by the water. It is not the case of the prosecution that Bhagirath was thrown in the running water after he died. The medical evidence reveals that Bhagirath died due to asphyxia. That suggests that his body was thrown after the infliction of injuries while he was still alive That explains how the clotted blood was found on some of the injuries of deceased Bhagirath despite his body being thrown in the water. 28. It is true that according to this witness, the appellant was having illicit intimacy with his wife. Mr. Bhansali contends that the witness had, thus, a strong animus against the appellant and was out and out to implicate him falsely so as to get rid of him. We are not impressed by the argument. The witness, in the very first question of his cross-examination. plainly admitted the fact of the appellant having illegal intimacy with his wife. If he was naive, he could have easily dewed this fact. The very fact that he plainly admitted this fact. goes to show his crediblity that he is a witness of truth. No person would come forward to admit such facts so easily. At the most, this fact should he taken into consideration while evaluating and assessing the testimony of this witness. His testimony cannot be thrown over-board only on account of this fact. 29. Mr. Bhansali invited our attention to the fact that according to this witness, he had produced the documents and licence containing the photo of Bhagirath. These article were seized and sealed but were not produced in the Court. Now, the approver Butasingh (PW 11) was arrested on August 21, 1977 vide arrest memo Ex. P 11. In consequence of the information furnished by him on August 23, 1977 (vide Ex. These article were seized and sealed but were not produced in the Court. Now, the approver Butasingh (PW 11) was arrested on August 21, 1977 vide arrest memo Ex. P 11. In consequence of the information furnished by him on August 23, 1977 (vide Ex. P 28), two gold rings and some documents including the licence pasted with the photo of Bhagirath, were recovered. They were seized. The seizure memo is Ex. P 31. The gold rings have been produced in the Court, which are Article 2 and Article 3. Seizure memo Ex. P 31 shows that some documents and the licence were seized. Unfortunately, the licence and the documents have not been produced and exhibited in the Court. Any way, the non-production of these documents is not material. They would have added nothing more to the prosecution case. The witness cannot be disbelieved simply because the documents produced by him were not put in the Court during trial as material exhibits. 30. The approver has given a vivid and graphic description as to how the plan to finish Bhagirath Jat was hatched by him and the appellant and how it was executed. There is nothing inherently improbable which may diminish the value of his testimony. He was a participant in the murder of Bhagirath and had taken his share of booty. His share was that of two gold rings (Article 2 and Article 3) which he produced before police. The learned Judge of the trial court found the approver to be a reliable witness. After a careful scrutiny of his testimony, we are unable to take a view different from that taken by the trial court. There is nothing to show that he has been falsely introduced as an approver without being a participant in the crime. We are quite conscious of the fact that the possibility of falsely introducing some-one as a witness in the guise of an approver cannot be altogether eliminated. It should, therefore, be seen whether the witness in question is in truth an accomplice or is merely posing as an accomplice? The testimony of PW 11 Butasingh convincingly shown that he was an active "particeps criminis" in the murder of Bhagirath. He had, therefore, the full inside knowledge of the crime and was fully posted with all the facts leading to its commission. We are unable to discard his testimony. 31. The testimony of PW 11 Butasingh convincingly shown that he was an active "particeps criminis" in the murder of Bhagirath. He had, therefore, the full inside knowledge of the crime and was fully posted with all the facts leading to its commission. We are unable to discard his testimony. 31. Thus, the contentions advanced by Mr. Bhansali in respect of the testimony of PW 11 Buta Singh have no force.Re: 3-Recoveries made in consequence of the informations furnished by the appellant and the approver: 32. Appellant Jagjitsingh was arrested at about 3.00 P.M. on August 18, 1977 vide arrest memo EX. P 11. At about 3.15 P.M. on the same day, he made the disclosure statement recorded in EX. P12 by the investigating officer Prem Narain (PW 16). The information was to the effect that he had given the gold bangle weighing 3.15 tolas to the goldsmith Jaswantsingh of Kesarsinghpur and that he would get it recovered. At about 3.30 P.M. he again gave the information recorded in EX. P 13 that he hidden the blood-stained sword under a big iron box lying in a Kotha of his house. He thereafter took the investigating officer and the Motbirs to his house and got the sword Article 9 recovered. It had some stains of blood on it. It was seized and sealed and seizure memo EX. P 15 was prepared. The appellant thereafter took the investigating officer and the Motbirs at the shop of Jaswantsingh Sonar (PW 3) situate in Kesarsinghpur. There he asked Jaswantsingh to produce the gold bangle he had given to him. Jaswantsingh thereupon produced gold bangle Article I before the police. It was seized and sealed and seizure memo EX. P 17 was prepared. The witnesses speaking about these two recoveries are Jaswantsingh Sonar (PW 3) motbirs Bhagsingh (PW 9) and Harnamsingh (PW 13) and the investigating officer Prem Narain (PW 16). All these witnesses have fully supported the prosecution version of the recoveries of the aforesaid articles at the instance of the appellant. They were cross-examined at some length, but nothing could be elicited from them which may make their testimony unworthy of belief. It is true that PW Bhagsingh and PW 13 Harnamsingh arc the residents of the appellant's village and they were taken to Kesarsinghpur, but their testimony cannot be put at discount on this reason. 33. They were cross-examined at some length, but nothing could be elicited from them which may make their testimony unworthy of belief. It is true that PW Bhagsingh and PW 13 Harnamsingh arc the residents of the appellant's village and they were taken to Kesarsinghpur, but their testimony cannot be put at discount on this reason. 33. It is alleged that Bhagirath Jat used to wear the gold bangle (Article 1). The test identification of this gold bangle was conducted on August 25, 1977 by Judicial Magistrate Shri Murlidhar Goswami (PW 21). The identification memo is E. P 21. PW 1 Jaimalsingh, PW 2 Mst. Bakhtawari and PW 8 Prithvi correctly identified this gold bangle Article 1 to be of Bhagirth Jat, who used to constantly wear it PW 3 Jaswantsingh Sonar stated that gold bangle (Art. 1) was given to him by the appellant. Though his testimony is not very perfect and he tried to change the sides, yet the fact stands proved from what he stated that gold bangle (Art. 1) was given to him by the appellant. The appellant has not laid his claim over this ornament. 34. It was contended by Mr. Bhansali that the test identification of this ornament was not carried out in a fair and impartial manner. Though four gold bangles were mixed with Article 1, but the mixed articles were not of the same design. Gold bangle (Article 1) had a thin line whereas the bangles which had been mixed, had no such thin lines. These three witnesses have stated that due to that thin line they could identify gold bangle (Article 1). The contention is not tenable. It is difficult to procure the same type of ornaments of that very design and shape. What is required is that similar articles should be mixed up with the articles in dispute in the test identification. The infirmity pointed out by Mr. Bhansali does not destroy the value of the test identification. Moreover, the substantive evidence of identification is that which is given in the court by the witnesses. The above three witnesses have categorically stated that Bhagirath Jat used to constantly wear gold bangle. Their testimony on this point could not be impeached or shattered in any way. Bhansali does not destroy the value of the test identification. Moreover, the substantive evidence of identification is that which is given in the court by the witnesses. The above three witnesses have categorically stated that Bhagirath Jat used to constantly wear gold bangle. Their testimony on this point could not be impeached or shattered in any way. We are, therefore, of the opinion that gold bangle (Article 1) was that of the deceased Bhagirath tat and he used to constantly wear it in his hand. 35. The sword was sent for chemical examination. As per report EX. P 37 of the Serologist, human blood was found on it. This constitutes a very valuable piece of evidence against the appellant. 36. It was argued by Mr. Bhansali that both these recoveries were planted and the appellant has been wrongly connected with them. The contention is barran of substance. The sword (Article 9) was found hidden under a big iron box in a Kotha of the house of the appellant. It could not be found there unless it was placed by the appellant. 37. It was also argued that there is no evidence to show that the seals of the packet of sword (Article 9) remained intact till it reached the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur. The only article sent for chemical examination connecting the accused is sword (Article 9). The prosecution has examined police constable Kundan Lal (PW 15) and Head Constable Om Prakash (PW 19). PW 19 Om Prakash deposed that he was Incharge of the Malkhana of Police Station. Kesarsinghpur at the relevant times. The Investigating Officer Prem Narain (PW 16) handed over various packets of articles to him to be kept in Malkhana. He took those packets and put them in the Malkhana. So long the packets remained in his custody, their seals remained intact. On September 6, 1977 he delivered these packets to Police Constable Kundan Lal (PW 15) to be carried to the State Forensic Science Laboratory Jaipur for chemical examination. The witness was not cross-examined at all. PW 15 Police Constable Kundan Lal deposed that on August 22, 1977 he was given sight sealed packet; to be carried to State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur. He took those packets and delivered them there. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory. Jaipur is EX. P 36. It shows that the packets were delivered there on 23-9-77. PW 15 Police Constable Kundan Lal deposed that on August 22, 1977 he was given sight sealed packet; to be carried to State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur. He took those packets and delivered them there. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory. Jaipur is EX. P 36. It shows that the packets were delivered there on 23-9-77. It also shows that the seals were intact- PW 15 Kundan Lal stated that so long the packets remained with him, their seals remained intact. He was also not cross-examined. The contention of Mr. Bhansali is that according to Kundan Lal (PW 15) the sealed packets were given to him on 22-8-77 to be carried to Jaipur whereas the report EX. P 36 shows that they were received at Jaipur on 23-9-77. It appears that the date of 22-8-77 occurring in the statement of PW 15 Kundan Lal is a typing mistake. The correct date should be 22-9-77. The digit 8' has been wrongly typed instead of digit 9'. There is nothing on record from which it may be inferred that the seals of the packet of the sword were tampered with. The contention, therefore, fails. 38. Coming to the recovery of gold rings (Article 2 and Article 3) in consequence of the information furnished by approver Butasingh (PW 11) (in the capacity of his being an accused before the pardon was tendered to him), there is no difficulty at all. The accused (approver) surrendered before the police on August 21, 1977 and was arrested vide arrest memo EX. P 11. He made the disclosure statement on August 23, 1977 before the investigating officer PW 25 Mahaveer Prasad, A. S. I. Police, which he recorded in EX. P 28. The information was to the effect that he had concealed the two gold rings in a box lying in a Kotha of his house. Thereafter he took the investigating officer and the Motbirs Bhagsingh (PW 9) and Harmansingh (PW 13) to his house and got the gold rings (Article 2 and Article 3) recovered. The seizure memo is EX. P 31. The name of "Chaudhary Bhagirath" (in Hindi) was found inscribed on both of them. Both these rings have been identified to he of Bhagirath Jat by PW 1 Jaimalsingh, PW 2 Mst. Bakhtawari and PW 8 Prithvi. The seizure memo is EX. P 31. The name of "Chaudhary Bhagirath" (in Hindi) was found inscribed on both of them. Both these rings have been identified to he of Bhagirath Jat by PW 1 Jaimalsingh, PW 2 Mst. Bakhtawari and PW 8 Prithvi. The recovery of the gold rings in consequence of the information furnished by the approver thus stands proved. 39. Mr. Bhansali made a very feeble attempt to persuade us that the various gold ornaments were taken by the police from the widow or son of the deceased-victim and were later on shown to have been recovered in consequence of the information furnished by the appellant and the approver. The recoveries were, thus, planted. We find no substance in the contention. There are no circumstances in the case from which the inference suggested by Mr. Bhansali can be drawn.Re: 4-Blood found on the spot- 40. This point has already been dealt with in the earlier part of the judgment.Re: 5- Corroborative evidence of PW 5 Balchand- 41. PW 5 Balchand is a resident of Ganganagar and is a goldsmith by profession He deposed that two persons came to his shop to sell a gold bangle. One of those persons had a cut thumb. He asked them to bring any person to verify their acquaintance and antecedents and he would thereafter purchase the gold bangle. Those two persons went away and never returned. The arrest memo EX. P 11 of the appellant Jagjitsingh shows that he has a cut thumb. The approver Butasingh (PW 11) has stated that he and the appellant went to the goldsmith at Ganganagar to sell the gold bangle to him. but could not, because they could not find any person of their acquaintance, to identify them before the goldsmith. The goldsmith therefore, refused to purchase the gold bangle. The evidence of these two witnesses, taken together, establishes that the appellant and the approver went to the goldsmith Balchand (PW 5) to sell the gold bangle to him but could not do so. 42. We have, thus, the testimony of approver Butasingh (PW 11) and the various sets of circumstantial evidence, as discussed above. These various tess of circumstantial evidence furnish ample corroboration to the testimony of the approver and the prosecution story in its material particulars connecting the appellant with the crime. There is no substance in the contention of Mr. 42. We have, thus, the testimony of approver Butasingh (PW 11) and the various sets of circumstantial evidence, as discussed above. These various tess of circumstantial evidence furnish ample corroboration to the testimony of the approver and the prosecution story in its material particulars connecting the appellant with the crime. There is no substance in the contention of Mr. Bhansali which may persuade us to dismiss the overwhelming evidence adduced in proof of the guilt of the appellant. 43. An approver is not a monster to be dreaded with or scared of. What is required is the cautious approach to his testimony. If he is really a "particeps criminis" and there is corroboration from independent source to the prosecution story in material particulars connecting the accused with the crime, conviction, then can he safely made. Judged the testimony of approver Butasingh (PW 11) in the light of the principles discussed above, the conviction of the appellant for the various offences is fully justified. He was rightly convicted and sentenced. We find no force in his appeal. 44. The appeal of accused Jagjitsingh is consequently dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******