PROFESSIONAL ETHICS of the lawyer in india.pptx

aabcashgf gyyf

1. Approver | Definition , Evidentiary Value & Relevancy of Evidence by Approver .

2. Introduction An approver is someone who has been charged with a crime but later confesses and agrees to testify for the prosecution. He receives a lighter sentence or perhaps a pardon as compensation for his confession and testimony. Such an agreement between the offender and the prosecutors enables a strong case against the defendant, aids in successful pro secution, and shortens the investigative period. Consequently, both parties stand to benefit.

3. DEFINITION The term “ approver ” is neither defined nor used in the Criminal Procedure Code, but refer to a person who is believed to have been directly or indirectly involved in or privy to an offence and to whom a pardon is granted under Section 337 of the Code in order to secure his evidence against other offenders. Since no independent evidence is available to hold the criminals accountable for their crimes in this State, organized crime situations like dacoities, the approach outlined in Section 337 is frequently used. Approver’s confession is referred to as a “related confession” because it includes both an admission of guilt and an accusation that another person participated in the crime. If the opposing party’s charge was found to be true, the accusing defendant was released. Otherwise, the accused man was found guilty based only on his own confession.

4. EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF AN APPROVERS TESTIMONY An approver is an accomplice in theory. The co-conspirator participates in key phases of the crime’s execution, such as planning, carrying out, or covering up, etc. According to K.K. Dalmia v. Delhi Administration , an accomplice is someone who voluntarily assists and cooperates with others in committing a crime. He is referred to as a particeps criminis, or an active participant in the crime.

5. Continue…. In his ruling in Ramaswami Goundan v. R, Sir Subramania Ayyar provided a clear description of the approver, which is “an accomplice witness is one who is either being jointly tried for the same offence and makes admissions which may be taken as evidence against a co-prisoner and which make the confessing accused pro hac vice a sort of witness, or one who has received a conditional pardon on the understanding that he is to tell all he knows, and who may at any time be relegated to the dock if he fails in his undertaking.”

6. RELEVANCY OF EVIDENCE BY APPROVER An accomplice is a competent witness against his co-accused and his testimony against the accused is admissible, according to the Indian Evidence Act, 1872’s Section 133. Furthermore, the fact that a testimony was unsupported by additional evidence does not make a conviction invalid. However, it has long been accepted practice in the legal community that the requirements of Illustration (b) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act must also be read in conjunction with Section 133 of the Evidence Act.

7. Continue…. Illustration (b) of Section 114 of the Act states that an accomplice is a person who is unworthy of credit unless and until the evidence presented by the approver is corroborated by additional evidence. This section of the Act deals with facts that the Court may assume in a specific case. Illustration (b) is a rule of guidance when dealing with evidence by the approver, where Section 133 is the rule; however, it is a presumption juris et de jure and not an absolute rule of law.

8. DOUBLE TEST THEORY The double test for approver evidence was established in the seminal case of Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab . The High Court in the current case considered the approver’s testimony, which was supported by other testimony, without taking into account the substantial flaws, contradictions, and improbabilities in that testimony. The court emphasized this point by ruling that: Prior to the Court’s consideration of the issue of corroboration and its sufficiency or otherwise, 1- His evidence must be reliable;
2- His evidence should be materially corroborated.

9. EXTENT AND NATURE OF CORROBORATION The nature and extent of corroboration of accomplice evidence vary in each case according to the facts and circumstances of the case; it is impossible to make a single rule for this subject. In Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan , the Hon’ble Supreme Court addressed the issue of the degree of corroboration necessary with an approver’s evidence, concluding that the kind and degree of corroboration must inevitably vary depending on the specifics of each case as well as the alleged offence.

10. THE OBJECTIVE OF PARDON Many times, the crime is performed in a way that leaves no trace or clues that could lead to its discovery. To enable the discovery of potentially damning items and other evidence that would not otherwise be accessible, pardon is granted for the arrest of the other criminals. To ensure that those who commit heinous and serious crimes are held accountable, the Legislature introduced Section 306, the code of criminal procedure. And limited its application to the class of cases mentioned therein. According to the Hon. Supreme Court’s ruling in Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar , anyone connected to the crime, whether directly or indirectly, is eligible for a pardon.

11. CONCLUSION The Courts in this country have by harmoniously reading Section 114(b) and Section 133 together laid down the guiding principle with respect to accomplice evidence which clearly lays down the law without any ambiguity. This principle which the courts have evolved is that though a conviction based upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice is not illegal or unlawful but the rule of prudence says that it is unsafe to act upon the evidence of an accomplice unless it is corroborated with respect to material aspects so as to implicate the accused.

12. Continue…. This guiding principle though very clear is often faced with difficulties with respect to its implementation. While implementing this principle different judges might have different levels of corroboration for accomplice evidence and thus with no hard and fast rules relating to the extent and nature of corroboration an element of subjectiveness creeps in which can result in injustice. Accomplice witness can be a competent witness by fulfilling certain condition. One necessary condition for being Accomplice Witness is that he must be involved in the crime. So, the Accomplice Evidence can be taken as a strong evidence when it is subject to corroboration.