Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

28.The Learned Counsel for Appellants has further argued that the testimony of PW-1 Sanjay Kumar and PW-66 Ashikul Islam, both approvers, cannot be accepted without independent and material corroboration. It is contended that these witnesses were themselves accused in the case and were granted pardon under Section 306 CrPC. Their testimony, by the very nature of their position, is tainted with self-interest and cannot form the sole basis of conviction.

62.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants also submitted that the trial court erred in relying heavily on the testimony of PW-1 Sanjay Kumar and PW-66 Ashikul Islam, both of whom were accomplices tendered pardon under Section 306 CrPC. Their depositions, it was argued, were tainted with self-interest and could not be accepted without material corroboration. The so-called corroboration relied upon by the prosecution was itself doubtful, being drawn either from the inadmissible Section 108 statement or from the deposition of a protected witness whose identity and veracity could not be tested by the defence.

79.Turning now to the testimony of approvers, PW-1 Sanjay Kumar and PW-66 Ashikul Islam, both of whom were tendered pardon under Section 306 CrPC, this Court is mindful of the principle that the testimony of an accomplice must be approached with caution. PW-1 gave Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1382 of 2018 dt.19-11-2025 a detailed account of the conspiracy and the role played by Kabir Khan, Ashraful Alam, Afroz Ansari and Alamgir Sheikh. His version was materially corroborated by PW- 66, who also deposed to the existence of a network through which consignments of FICN were procured from across the border in Malda, West Bengal, and distributed in Bihar. While the defence sought to impeach their credibility on the ground of self-interest, this Court finds that their testimony is corroborated in material particulars by independent circumstances such as the recoveries effected, the call detail records produced by nodal officers, and the financial transactions proved by bank officials. The learned trial court, therefore, rightly accepted their evidence.

88.The next challenge relates to the reliance placed upon the testimony of PW-1 Sanjay Kumar and PW-66 Ashikul Islam, both of whom were accomplices tendered pardon under Section 306 CrPC (Section 343 BNSS).

89.Section 133 of the Evidence Act provides that an accomplice shall be 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. However, Illustration (b) to Section 114 mandates a rule of prudence that the testimony of an accomplice should ordinarily be corroborated in material particulars before it is acted upon.