An approver’s testimony can sustain conviction if it is credible and corroborated in material particulars; a defect or omission in framing a specific charge does not vitiate conviction absent demonstrable prejudice under S.464 CrPC.

on

Facts

Two dead bodies were recovered in July 1984 under different police station jurisdictions in Delhi. Investigation revealed that the deceased, Arun Kumar (driver) and Jasbir (cleaner), were employed on Truck No. URM 660 and had been murdered as part of a plan to steal the truck. Five persons were implicated, including the appellant Gopi Chand @ Pappu. One accused, Ashok Kumar, was granted pardon and became an approver (PW-1). The prosecution case was that the accused conspired to hire the truck, murder the driver and cleaner, and steal the vehicle. The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Ss.302, 396, 201 and 120-B IPC, and the High Court affirmed the conviction. The appellant challenged the conviction before the Supreme Court.

Issues Framed

(a) Whether the testimony of PW-1 (the approver) could form the basis of conviction of the appellant?

(b) Whether the appellant’s conviction under S.302 r/w S.120-B IPC was sustainable? (Para 16)

Court’s Reasoning

(a) Evidentiary Value of an Approver’s Testimony

The Court undertook an extensive review of authorities on accomplice evidence and reiterated that while S.133 IEA permits conviction on uncorroborated accomplice testimony, Illustration (b) to S.114 IEA embodies a rule of prudence requiring corroboration in material particulars in the ordinary course. The requirement is not an inflexible rule of law but one of judicial caution. (Paras 23–29)

The Court summarised that corroboration need not extend to every detail and may be direct or circumstantial. What is necessary is evidence making it reasonably safe to rely upon the approver’s account. (Para 29)

(b) Whether PW-1 Was an Exculpatory Witness

Rejecting the appellant’s argument, the Court held that PW-1’s testimony was not self-exculpatory. His evidence disclosed his own participation in the criminal enterprise, including assisting in restraining one of the victims and participating in the plan to steal the truck. Merely because he did not inflict the fatal blows did not render his testimony exculpatory. (Paras 37–38)

(c) Corroboration of PW-1’s Account

The Court found substantial corroboration through independent circumstances, including recovery and identification of the stolen truck, discovery and identification of the bodies, forensic and medical evidence, and recoveries matching PW-1’s narration. These circumstances corroborated the “graphic narration of the crime” given by the approver. (Para 39)

(d) Defect in Charge and Criminal Conspiracy

The appellant argued that no specific charge for conspiracy to commit murder had been framed against him. Referring to S.464 CrPC, the Court held that a conviction is not invalid merely because of an omission or defect in the charge unless a failure of justice is shown. The record demonstrated that the appellant was aware of the allegations and had contested them at trial. No prejudice was established. (Paras 41–43)

The Court further held that the evidence established participation in the conspiracy to commit dacoity and murders. Even if the appellant was not physically present at every stage of the killings, he remained part of the common design, attracting liability under the law of criminal conspiracy. (Paras 50–53)

Held

The Supreme Court upheld the appellant’s conviction, holding that PW-1’s testimony was reliable, sufficiently corroborated, and capable of sustaining conviction. The challenge based on defects in the charge was rejected. However, considering that the incident was of 1984, that co-convicts had obtained remission, and that the appellant had already undergone more than 18 years of imprisonment, the Court modified the sentence of life imprisonment to the period already undergone and directed his release forthwith if not required in any other case. 

Ratio

An approver’s testimony may form the basis of conviction when it is credible and corroborated in material particulars, and a conviction will not be vitiated by omission or irregularity in framing a charge unless actual prejudice or failure of justice is established under S.464 CrPC. 

Case Details

Citation: 2026 INSC 598
Decided on: 29 May 2026
Case Title: Gopi Chand @ Pappu v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.; Manoj Misra, J.

Key Provisions: Ss.302, 396, 201, 120-A, 120-B IPC; S.133 IEA; S.114 IEA; S.464 CrPC.