JUDGMENT 1. - The two accused-appellants, namely, Pappu alias Sayeed Ahmed and Liledhar, son of Hemandas, were tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur City for offences under sections 120-B, 364, 302, 201 and 387 IPC. They have been convicted and sentenced for the said offences by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur by his judgment dated March 13, 1981. 2. The accused-appellant Liladhar is son of Hemandas, real brother of Jethanand (PW 31) and as such nephew of Jethanand. Chandu alias Chandra Prakash deceased, a boy of 8 or 9 years, was the son of Jetha Nand (PW. 31) and as such a cousin of accused-appellant Liladhar. Jetha Nand (PW. 31) is a businessman and appears to be a man of some means. The case of the prosecution is that about 2 or 3 months prior to July 11, 1978, the two accused-appellants along with Nanakram (PW. 1), who turned an approver, hatched a conspiracy to kidnap Chandu alias Chandra Prakash and release him after demanding and receiving ransom from his father Jetha Nand (PW. 31) Nanak Ram earlier worked at the shop of Hemandas, father of Liladhar accused and as such was known to Liladhar. On July 11, 1978, it was decided by the two-accused appellants and Nanak Ram to execute their conspiracy and to kidnap Chandu. At about 5.30 or 6.00 p.m. that day Chandu deceased came out of his house and was going towards the shop to purchase toffee and the accused-appellant Liladhar met him near Govind General Stores and asked Chandu to accompany him for round of the city for pleasure. Chandu was made seated on the cycle-frame which was driven by Liladhar accused and reached near the mental hospital. The other accused-appellant Pappu alias Sayeed Ahmed and Nanak Ram also met there. A scooter was brought from the shop of Nandkishor (PW 14). The two accused-appellants and Nanak Ram (PW. 1) went towards Galta road, Jaipur where some namkin was purchased from Smt. Dakha (PW. 30). A rope was also purchased and the two appellants and Nanak Ram (PW. 1) took away Chandu towards Suraj temple and from there towards Amagarh and Helak. It had become dark and Liladhar became suspicious. It is alleged that Pappu Alias Sayeed Ahmed gave blows with empty campa cola bottle on the head of Chandu and also gave a few blows with stones lying there. 1) took away Chandu towards Suraj temple and from there towards Amagarh and Helak. It had become dark and Liladhar became suspicious. It is alleged that Pappu Alias Sayeed Ahmed gave blows with empty campa cola bottle on the head of Chandu and also gave a few blows with stones lying there. Nanak Ram (PW. 1) also caused injuries to Chandu as a result of which Chandu died. The dead body of Chandu was thrown inside the `tanka' and the two accused-appellants and Nanak Ram (PW.1) left that place. 3. The case of the prosecution further is that thereafter, demand of ransom was made from Jetha Nand (PW 31) on telephone on more than one occasion and the letters were also addressed demanding the ransom amounting to Rs. 25,000/-. The dead body of a boy was seen floating in the `tanka' of Amagarh sometime on July 13, 1978 and Gul Mohammed (PW. 21) the then MLA was informed about the same. Gulmohamad in turn informed the police station about the fact and the dead body was recovered on the same day by PW 20 Girdhari Singh from Amagarh `tanka' and it was identified as of Chandu alias Chandra Prakash. 4. Post mortem was conducted on the dead body. As many as nine injuries were found on the skull and in the opinion of the doctor the cause of death was coma due to intracranial haemorrhage and fracture of skull bones. 5. The two accused-appellants and Nanak Ram (PW. 1) were arrested on October 22, 1978 and on the information of Nanak Ram (PW 1) some recoveries including that of Chappals of the deceased were made. A pant was recovered at his instance which was blood stained. Similarly, from accused Pappu, a pant and a shirt were recovered on the basis of his information which were blood stained. The scooter and cycle which have been used in the kidnapping of Chandu were also recovered. Scooter No. RAM 8773 belongs to Ummed Singh (PW. 23) which had been stolen away on July 4, 1978 and a report had been lodged by the said Ummed Singh about the theft of the scooter. From accused-appellant Pappu his diary was recovered and his specimen writings were also obtained before the Magistrate The disputed writing of Pappu accused said to be contained in Ex. P/14 to Ex. 23) which had been stolen away on July 4, 1978 and a report had been lodged by the said Ummed Singh about the theft of the scooter. From accused-appellant Pappu his diary was recovered and his specimen writings were also obtained before the Magistrate The disputed writing of Pappu accused said to be contained in Ex. P/14 to Ex. P/16 as well as his specimen writing were sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory and the Director of the State Forensic Science Laboratory has opined that the writer of standard writings contained in S. 1 to section 51, A. 1 to A. 16 and A. 14/1 also wrote the disputed writings marked as Q. 1 to Q. 5. 6. Nanak Ram (PW. 1) turned an approver and he was examined by the committing court as well as the learned trial court as a witness. The two accused appellants were tried and after closing the prosecution evidence, they were examined under section 313 Cr P. C. to explain the circumstance appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. They stand on a bare plea of denial. The plea of the accused Liladhar is that he has been falsely implicated and he was made to sign a few papers forcibly by the police. Accused Pappu alias Sayeed Ahmed in addition to denying his complicity in the crime has denied the recovery of three copies of Ex P/12, P/12/1 and P/12/2 said to contain his writings. He has also denied that his specimen writings were taken by Padam Kumar Jain, Magistrate (PW. 32). The accused persons did not examine any in defence. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the case rests on the solitary statement of Nanak Ram (PW. 1) who is an accomplice and the manner in which he has given his statement will show that he is not a reliable witness. He therefore contends that the learned Sessions Judge erred in basing the conviction on the testimony of Nanak Ram (P. W. 1) 8. Nanak Ram (PW. 1) is an accomplice and an accomplice is a competent witness and by virtue of section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act a conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated test money of an accomplice. Nanak Ram (PW. 1) is an accomplice and an accomplice is a competent witness and by virtue of section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act a conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated test money of an accomplice. The rule of prudence embodied in illustration (b) of section 114 of the Evidence Act strikes a note cautioning the court that an accomplice does not generally deserve to be believed unless corroborated in material particulars. The combined effect of section 133 and 114 illustration (b) of the Evidence Act is that though a conviction based upon the statement of accomplice is legal the court will not accept such evidence unless it is corroborated in material particulars from an independent source. Thus, the rule is that the necessity of corroboration in material particulars of the statement of an accomplice should be present in the mind of the judge except when he feels it safe to dispense with such corroboration. Before the evidence of an approver is accepted it must satisfy dual test. He must prove his worthiness for credibility in court. This test can be said to be fulfilled, firstly, if the story he relates involves him in the crime and appears intrinsically to be a natural and probable catalogue of events that had taken place. 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. It must be corroborated in material particulars. The corroboration can be by circumstantial evidence also. In the light of the above proposition we will proceed to examine the statement of Nanak Ram (PW. 1) in order to see as to whether he is a reliable witness. 9. Nanak Ram (PW. 1) as per his statement came into contact with Liladhar accused-appellant when he was working at the shop of Liladhar. Liladhar in his statement under section 313 Cr. P. C. in answer to question No. 1 has stated that Nanak Ram used to work at the shop of his father and not at his shop. 9. Nanak Ram (PW. 1) as per his statement came into contact with Liladhar accused-appellant when he was working at the shop of Liladhar. Liladhar in his statement under section 313 Cr. P. C. in answer to question No. 1 has stated that Nanak Ram used to work at the shop of his father and not at his shop. Though he stated that while Nanak Ram was working at the shop of his father, there was dispute with him in connection with some money but no question was put to Nanak Ram in cross-examination in that respect and, therefore, it can said that Nanak Ram (PW 1) does not bear any ill-will or against the accused-appellant. Nanak Ram (PW. 1) states that it was agreed between him and the other accused-appellants that Chandu son of Jetha Nand should be kidnapped and after demanding and receiving ransom he should be returned to Jetha Nand. This conspiracy which had been hatched earlier was executed on July 11, 1978 when he and two accused-appellants assembled at Sindhi Restaurant near twenty shops Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur. According to his statement on July 11, 1978, at about 5 30 or 6.00 p. m. when he was going towards Liladhar he saw that Chandu came out of his house and was proceeding towards Govind General Stores. He (Nanak Ram) followed him. Before Chandu reached Govind General Stores, Liladhar called Chandu by making some gestures towards him. At the instance of Liladhar Chandu agreed to go with him for a pleasure round, and Liladhar directed him (Nanak Ram) along with Pappu to come towards ice factory. Liladhar and Chandu proceeded on a cycle and he (Nanak Ram) and Pappu proceeded on another cycle towards the ice factory. They reached towards mental hospital at the instance of Liladhar. Liladhar asked Pappu to bring the scooter from the shop of Nanakishore. He (Nanak Ram) and Pappu reached the shop of Nandkishore and left cycle there and brought scooter. Liladhar and Pappu along with Chandu went towards Suraj temple. Nanak Ram followed them on cycle and the cycle was deposited with an old lady and a 10 rupee note was given by Pappu for a campa-cola bottle and a rope. Tea was taken at the shop of old lady, but Pappu did not take tea and therefore namkin was purchased for him which was consumed by Pappu and others. Nanak Ram followed them on cycle and the cycle was deposited with an old lady and a 10 rupee note was given by Pappu for a campa-cola bottle and a rope. Tea was taken at the shop of old lady, but Pappu did not take tea and therefore namkin was purchased for him which was consumed by Pappu and others. Nanak Ram further states that all the four of them, namely, two accused-appellants, Nanak and Chandu went towards the Galta Ghai and Chandu enquired as he had not sought permission from his house, where they were going. At this Liladhar replied that being Tuesday, they were going to Suraj temple to have darshan. Four of five friends of Pappu met them near Suraj temple. Then they went towards Amagarh hill where Chandu started weeping. He was pacified. Liladhar gave out to Pappu whatever is to be done should be done, otherwise Chandu, if returned home back, he will disclose everything. Campa cola bottle was opened and two compose tablets were mixed in it. Chandu was asked to take it but after taking a sip he refused to take it further. The Campa cola bottle was thrown there and when they travelled at a distance of about 60 to 65 steps, Pappu lifted the bottle and gave two or three blows on the head of Chandu, Chandu raised an alarm. Pappu gagged his mouth with handkerchief. Nanak Ram further states that he also gave a blow with stones lying there on the head of Chandu C handu died and thereafter he was lifted and was taken to the tanka of Amagarh and was thrown into it. 10. As per the statement of Nanak Ram (PW 1) when they returned after having thrown the dead body of Chandu he noticed that at the place where Chandu was killed his chappals were lying. He lifted those chappals and concealed them in the way. Later on, on his information on under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act Chappals (Article 1) were recovered and were identified as that of Chandu by Jethanand (PW. 31). 11. Nanak Ram was arrested and he stated that after his arrest he got the chappals recovered on the basis of his information from the place they were concealed. He further states that after having reached Sindhi Camp contact was made with Jethanand on telephone but Jethanand was not available. 31). 11. Nanak Ram was arrested and he stated that after his arrest he got the chappals recovered on the basis of his information from the place they were concealed. He further states that after having reached Sindhi Camp contact was made with Jethanand on telephone but Jethanand was not available. Then they went to LMB hotel and from there Pappu contacted Jethanand and told him that Chandu was with them and they will talk in the morning. Later on, the same day Liladhar disclosed that Jethanand has lodged the report with the police. Nanak Ram (PW. 1) has also stated that at the instance of Liladhar ransom amounting to Rs 25,000/- was demanded with the letter Ex. P/14 written by Pappu alias Sayeed Ahmed. An envelope was purchased by Pappu in which Ex. P/16 was kept Pappu wrote a letter and address of Jethanand on the envelope. On that day the shop of Jethanand was closed, and therefore that letter was placed by Nanak Ram (PW. 1) in the shop from beneath the shutter. It has been stated by him that later on another letter was written by Pappu which is Ex. P/14. It is in the hand writing of Pappu. Pappu had given out that he has written that letter informing Jethanand that in case he brought the police then Chandu shall be killed. It has also been stated by him that the dead body of Chandu has come out of tanka and steps should be taken to see that it again goes under the water. He and Pappu therefore purchased a nara and went to tanka and when they were making efforts to tie the stone, some people arrived there and they (Nanak Ram and Pappu) made their escape. He was arrested by the police and then made the confessional statement. 12. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants has contended that from the statement of Nanak Ram (PW. 1) it can be said that at the initial stage the conspiracy was to kidnap Chandu and demand and receive ransom and thereafter to handover Chandu to his father Jetha Nand. He contends that from the statement of Nanak Ram (PW. 1) it cannot be said that a conspiracy was hatched to cause the death of Chandu alias Chandra Prakash. 1) it can be said that at the initial stage the conspiracy was to kidnap Chandu and demand and receive ransom and thereafter to handover Chandu to his father Jetha Nand. He contends that from the statement of Nanak Ram (PW. 1) it cannot be said that a conspiracy was hatched to cause the death of Chandu alias Chandra Prakash. Learned Sessions Judge has discussed the statement of approver from page 267 and onwards and has observed that the approver has given a vivid description of the events with regard to kidnapping and causing the death of Chandu and has not concealed anything. He has also observed that Nanak Ram (PW. 1) has not concealed his part in the commission of the offence. He has thus held the approver to be a reliable witness. We have gone through the statement of Nanak Ram (PW. 1) and as already stated earlier, he has given vivid description of the entire incident and also stated his own participation in the commission of the offence. He was already knowing Liladhar as he had served at the shop of his father and has been introduced to Pappu by Liladhar. Learned counsel for the appellant could not show us any major infirmity in the statement of Nanak Ram (PW. I) and we are of the opinion that his evidence does not suffer from any serious infirmity. Nanak Ram (PW. 1) is a reliable witness. It satisfied the first of the two tests for appreciating the evidence of the approver, which test is common to all witnesses. 13. As already stated earlier rule of prudence is that the court should act on the evidence of approver if it is corroborated in material particulars placed on record, and such corroboration can also be by circumstantial evidence. We must therefore proceed to see whether the evidence of Nanak Ram (PW. 1) is corroborated in material particulars from the other circumstantial evidence on record. The first circumstance, which we would like to discuss is the fact that Pappu alias Sayeed Ahmed is said to have addressed two letters to Jethanand (PW. 31) demanding ransom. We have already discussed the statement of Nanak Ram (PW. 1) is corroborated in material particulars from the other circumstantial evidence on record. The first circumstance, which we would like to discuss is the fact that Pappu alias Sayeed Ahmed is said to have addressed two letters to Jethanand (PW. 31) demanding ransom. We have already discussed the statement of Nanak Ram (PW. 1) and he stated that at the instance of Liladhar, Pappu alias Sayeed Ahmed in his (Nanak Ram's) presence has addressed letters Ex.P/14 and P/16 and has also written the address of Jethanand on the envelope Ex P/15. Thus from the statement it can be said that the writing of Pappu on the above mentioned documents has been proved by the statement of Nanak Ram (PW. 1). Jethanand (PW. 31) is the father of Chandu deceased and he has stated that he went to his shop and found a letter (Ex P/16) there. It was in the envelope Ex. P/15. He produced both these documents before the police and the police seized them vide seizure memo Ex. P/31. Sayeed Ahmed alias Pappu accused denied that these letters were addressed by him to Jethanand. But his specimen signatures were taken before Padam Kumar Jain PW 32 who was Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jaipur City on October 28, 19/8 [Padam Kumar Jain has stated that accused Pappu alias Sayeed Ahmed had written the specimen writing Ex. P/43/1 to 43/50 in his presence and he also put his signatures on those documents. We have already referred to the report of the Director of State Forensic Science Laboratory. The report is Ex. P/73 and it has been mentioned therein that the writer of standard writings contained in S.l to S. 51, A. 1 to A. 16 and A. 14/1 also wrote the disputed writings marked Q. 1 to Q. 5. Q. 1 is the letter dated July 12, 1978 (Ex. P/16 (Q. 2 is the letter dated July 13, 1978 (Ex. P/14) and Q. 3 is the envelope. Under section 293 Cr. P. C. any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Government scientific expert to whom this section applies, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under the Code of Criminal Procedure, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Code Criminal Procedure. The aforesaid section applies to the Director of Finger Print Bureau and also to the Director, Central or State Forensic Science Laboratory. Thus the report Ex P/73 is admissible in evidence. It can therefore be said that the letters Ex. P/14 and and Ex. P. 16 and the envelope Ex. P/15 are in the handwriting of Pappu alias Sayeed Ahmed. Thus the statement of approver that Pappu alias Sayeed Ahmed addressed letters to Jethanand is corroborated by the documentary evidence as well as by the statement of Jethanand (PW. 31) in which he stated that he received the letter Ex. P/16 in envelope Ex. P/15. 14. Smt. Kanta PW. 2) is the daughter of Jethanand (PW. 31) and elder sister of deceased Chandu alias Chandra Prakash. She stated on July 11, 1978 Chandu, her younger brother, had left the house with one rupee to purchase toffees and did not return thereafter. She informed her father on phone at the shop at about 7.00 p m. Her father runs a shop in Bapur Bazar. At about 9.00 p. m. a telephone was received at the house and the caller enquired about Jethanand. She replied that he was not in the house. The caller gave out that he will again contact at about 10.00 p. m. After her father returned to the house, she informed him about the telephone. Again at about 10.30 p. m. telephone bell rang and the call was received by her father, who later on told her that the caller has given out that Chandu was with him and information will be sent next day. Next day her father gave a letter (Ex P/16) which he picked from the shop. Jethanand (PW. 31) stated that at about 7.00 p. m. he received telephone from the house that Chandu alias Chandra Prakash who had gone out has not returned. When he returned to the house Kanta his daughter informed him that a telephone had been received and the message has been given on it that as and when Jethanand returns he will talk and Chandu was with the caller, on phone. At about 9.30 p m. again he (Jethanand) received telephone message and the caller gave out that Chandu was with him and next day he (Jethanand) will receive information. At about 9.30 p m. again he (Jethanand) received telephone message and the caller gave out that Chandu was with him and next day he (Jethanand) will receive information. They waited for the message throughout the night and on the next day at about 12.00 noon a telephone message was received by him that a letter has been kept in the shop and he should pick it up. That day it was close day for the market. He informed the CID Inspector about the message received on telephone. When he went to the shop he received a letter (Ex. P/16) lying there. It was in the envelop Ex. P/15. He further states that when he returned to the house in the night they received a telephonic message at about 12 night that he should go to the temple of Mahadevi or Motidungari road. Saying so, the caller put the receiver off the telephone. He went to that place and waited there for an hour or so. He received a telephonic message in which it was mentioned "Shivji's temple Kapoor Transport, danger". Saying so the telephone stopped. He has stated that he cannot recognise the voice of the phone but on all the occasions the person calling was the same as it appeared to him from his voice We have already referred to the statement of Nanak Ram (PW. 1) who has stated that on all the occasions accused Pappu had given telephonic messages to Jethanand demanding ransom or reaching with the money at particular place. Thus, the statement of Nanak Ram (PW. 1) is corroborated by the above evidence that Jethanand and Kanta received telephonic messages and it can be said that on this material particular the evidence of PW. 1 Nanak Ram is corroborated. 15. It has been stated by Nanak Ram (PW 1) that at Galta gate from the shop of the old lady some namkin was purchased and tea was also taken. He has also stated that Chandu did not take tea and that is why 'namkin' had to be purchased and the same was taken by Chandu and Nanak Ram (PW. 1). Smt. Dakha (PW. 30) has stated that she runs a shop at Galta gate and that she sells gram etc. She was unable to say as to weather Nanak Ram (PW. 1). Smt. Dakha (PW. 30) has stated that she runs a shop at Galta gate and that she sells gram etc. She was unable to say as to weather Nanak Ram (PW. 1) or anybody else purchased anything from her shop on July 11, 1978 and rightly so, as it is not possible for petty shop keeper to remember as to who purchased petty items from his or her shop. She has not identified either PW. 1 Nanak Ram and Pappu alias Sayeed Ahmed. But on post-mortem examination on the dead-body (post mortem report Ex. P/38) of Chandu it was found that the small intentions contained undigested food material. The presence of undigested food material (dal) in the intestines of deceased Chandu shows that the statement of approver is corroborated on the point that some namkin was purchased near Galta-gate which was consumed by Chandu deceased also. It has come in evidence of Nanak Ram (PW. 1) that Ldadhar gave out that the dead body of Chandu might have come above the water and steps should be taken to conceal it. He further states that he (Nanak Ram) and Pappu went towards Galta and purchased a rope (nara, for Rs. 1/- and then he and Pappu went towards tanka and saw that the dead body was floating in the tank and Sayeed Ahmed tied stones with the rope as with the help of stones they wanted to conceal the dead body under the water but in the mean time five persons arrived there and leaving the rope and the stones he (Nanak Ram PW.l) and Pappu alias Syeed Ahmed accused ran away. 16. Girdhari Singh (PW. 22) was posted as ASI at the Ramganj Police Station on July 14, 1978 and it is he who with the help of others had taken out the dead body of Chandu from Amagarh Tanka. He has stated that from the site, he recovered two stones and a rope and seized them vide seizure memo Ex. P/33. Nanak Ram (PW.l) has identified the rope Article 3 as the same which has been purchased in order to tie the stones with it and to give weight to the floating dead body so that it may go under the water. 17. Kalu Khan (PW. P/33. Nanak Ram (PW.l) has identified the rope Article 3 as the same which has been purchased in order to tie the stones with it and to give weight to the floating dead body so that it may go under the water. 17. Kalu Khan (PW. 24) was examined on August 25, 1980 and he stated that about two years ago he and three more persons had gone to take a bath in the tanka of Amagarh. While they were going there a person Meena by caste met them and said that a dead body was lying in Aina ki Garhi and when they reached there it started raining and people who were present there started running away. He further states that he also saw persons near the 'Tanka' and seeing him (Kalu Khan) and his companions they also ran away. He identified Nanak Ram (PW. 1) and Pappu as the two persons who were seen near the 'Tanka. Munna (PW. 29) had also accompanied Kalu Khan and he states that he and others saw from the distance of about 15 steps that two persons were near the tanka and seeing them they ran away. Both Kalu Khan and Munna identified Nanak Ram (PW. 1) and Pappu alias Sayeed Ahmed as the two persons whom they had seen near the `tanka' that day. An identification parade of Nanak Ram and Pappu was held by Padam Kumar Jain on October 28, 1978 in the Central Jail, Jaipur and Padam Kumar Jain (PW 32) stated that Kalu Khan, Munna and Afzal identified Sayeed Ahmed alias Pappu and Nanak Ram (PW 1) correctly. He prepared the identification memo Ex P/4. Both Kalu Khan and Munna in their cross-examination have stated that they had seen accused Pappu from the distance of about 15 to 25 steps and that Pappu and Nanak Ram took to their heels from the back side of the `tanka' and that they had only seen their back Kalu Jahan (PW. 24) also stated that they had followed the two persons for some distance and thereafter gave up the chase. They have also stated that. When they saw the dead body it had started raining and it had become a bit dark. 24) also stated that they had followed the two persons for some distance and thereafter gave up the chase. They have also stated that. When they saw the dead body it had started raining and it had become a bit dark. Munna (PW 29) (page 129 of the paper book) has also stated that though it had become a pitch dark because of the rains but at that time both the persons were facing towards them and then ran away. Thus, the statement of the approver Nanak Ram (PW. 1) so far as he stated that he and Pappu had gone to take steps so that the dead body may go again under the surface of water is corroborated by the statements of Kalu Khan (PW. 24) and Munna (PW. 29). These two witness are independent witnesses and there is no reason to disbelieve their statements, more so when as already stated above, a rope and stones were found lying there. 18. Chappals (Article 1) of Chandu deceased were recovered on the information under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act given by Nanak Ram (PW 1) while he was in police custody and the same were identified to be of Chandu deceased by Jethanand (PW.31). As already stated earlier, Nanak Ram picked up the chappal while returning after throwing the dead body into the tanka and concealed them beneath the stones. He also stated that he gave information later on to get the chappals recovered and on his information the said chappals were recovered. Thus, the statement of Nanak Ram (PW 1) is corroborated by the recovery of chappals of the deceased Chandu and from the statement of the Investigating Officer of the case. 19. From the above discussion it can be said that sufficient corroboration of the statement of the approver is there and the corroboration is on material particulars. 20. But, the question is as to whether the corroboration should be qua each accused or not. 21. In Rameshwar v. The State Rajasthan, 1952 SC 54 , it was held that independent evidence must not only make it safe to believe that the crime was committed but must in some way reasonably connect or tend to connect the accused with it by confirming in some material particular the testimony of the accomplice or complainant that the accused committed the crime. In Ambika Charan Roy v. Emperor, AIR 1931 Calcutta 697 , it is was held that one has to look carefully at the evidence to see if there is independent evidence implicating each one of these other accused which would enable the court to rely upon the general truth of the approver's evidence. In Bhima Shaw v. The State, 1956 Cr. L. J. 1208 it was held that the general rule that the evidence of an accomplice should not be accepted unless there is adequate corroboration in material particulars not only in respect of the commission of the crime but also in respect of the participation of each of the accused (emphasis added) in the commission of that crime, is too well-known. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the law is well settled that the corroboration in material particulars of the evidence of the approver should not only be in respect of the commission of the crime but also in respect of the part that has been taken by each of the accused in the commission of that crime. We have already discussed the evidence of Nanak Ram (PW.l) and have also discussed the circumstantial evidence corroborating his statement in material particulars in so far as accused Pappu alias Sayeed Ahmed is concerned. It can be said that as a result of the above discussion that the statement of Nanak Ram (PW.l), the approver, is corroborated in material particulars from the circumstantial evidence enumerated above so far as accused Pappu alias Sayeed Ahmed is concerned. But we have to examine as to whether there is corroboration of the statement of Nanak Ram (PWI), the approver, in respect of accused Liladhar ? 22. It may be stated that the principles in cases where the pivot of the prosecution is the statement of the approver have already been discussed in the earlier part of this judgment and though under section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act the conviction of the accused only based on the uncorroborated testimony of accomplice, if he is a reliable witness, is not illegal, but the rule of prudence, which rule should be present in the mind of Judge, is that the conviction on uncorroborated testimony qua each of the accused should not be made unless in a given case the court considers it fit to dispense with the corroboration of the evidence of the approver. In the instant case we are of the opinion that it is not the case in which the corroboration of the evidence of the approver Nanak Ram (PW.l) should be dispensed with. We will therefore proceed to see as to whether there is any circumstance corroborating the statement of the approver, Nanak Ram (PW.l), in respect of accused-appellant Liladhar. 23. The learned Sessions Judge has not discussed the circumstances allegedly corroborating the statement of approver separately in respect of each accused-appellants. On the information (Ex.P/63) of accused Liladhar a cycle (Article 8) was recovered as corroborated by Amritlal Bharadwaj (PW5). Learned Sessions Judge observed (at page 14, para 2) in his judgment that there is no evidence on record that cycle Article 8 was connected with the crime or Liladhar appellant has been connected with the crime by the mere recovery of the cycle. Besides the recovery of the cycle, there is no other circumstantial evidence on record connecting Liladhar with the crime and, therefore, it can be said that there is no corroboration of the evidence of the approver Nanak Ram (PW. 1) what to say on material particulars but even in minor particulars. Thus, as stated above, in the absence of the corroboration of the evidence of Nanak Ram (PW 1) in respect of accused-appellant Liladhar, we are of the opinion that it will not be safe to base conviction of accused Liladhar only on the uncorroborated testimony of the approver Nanak Ram (PW 1). 24. In the result, we allow appeal filed by Liladhar (D.B. Cr. Appeal No. 213 of 1981), and set aside the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge so far as the conviction and sentence of the accused-appellant Liladhar under section 302, and I20-B IPC is concerned. He is acquitted of the charges framed against him. The appeal filed by Sayeed Ahmed alias Pappu (D.B. Cr. Appeal No. 257 of 1981) is hereby dismissed. Accused Liladhar is in jail. He shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Accused-appellant Sayeed Ahmed alias Pappu may be informed the result of his appeal through the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jaipur.Appeal of Allowed, while of Section dismissed. *******