PROFESSIONAL ETHICS in the world of law.pptx

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

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 prosecution,
and shortens the investigative period. Consequently, both parties stand to
benefit.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

PROFESSIONAL ETHICS in the world of law.pptx

Related slideshows

More Related Content

Similar to PROFESSIONAL ETHICS in the world of law.pptx

Similar to PROFESSIONAL ETHICS in the world of law.pptx (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

PROFESSIONAL ETHICS in the world of law.pptx