The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of an accused in a 1984 double murder and truck dacoity case, while extensively clarifying the legal principles governing reliance on accomplice evidence and conspiratorial liability. 

A Bench of Justice Manoj Misra dismissed the criminal appeals filed by Gopi Chand alias Pappu, challenging a common judgment of the Delhi High Court which had affirmed his conviction in two connected murder cases arising out of the killing of a truck driver and cleaner during a planned truck theft. 

Background of the Case

The case traces its origin to July 1984, when two separate dead bodies were discovered in Delhi under the jurisdiction of different police stations. One body was identified as Arun Kumar, the driver of a truck, while the other was identified as Jasbir, the cleaner of the same vehicle. Investigation revealed that both had been murdered as part of a conspiracy to steal Truck No. URM-660. 

According to the prosecution, a group of five individuals hatched a plan to steal the truck. They hired the vehicle on the pretext of transporting pumpkins and subsequently murdered the driver and cleaner before making away with the truck. During investigation, several accused were arrested and the stolen vehicle was recovered. One of the accused, Ashok Kumar, later turned approver and became the star witness for the prosecution. 

The trial court convicted the accused for offences including murder, dacoity with murder, destruction of evidence and criminal conspiracy. The Delhi High Court affirmed the conviction, leading to the appeals before the Supreme Court. 

Key Questions Before the Supreme Court

The principal issues before the Court were:

1. Whether the testimony of the approver could legally form the basis of conviction.
2. Whether the conviction of Gopi Chand under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC for criminal conspiracy to commit murder was sustainable. 

The appellant argued that the prosecution’s case rested almost entirely on the approver’s testimony, which was allegedly self-exculpatory and insufficiently corroborated. It was also argued that no proper charge of conspiracy to commit murder had been framed against him. 

Supreme Court on Evidentiary Value of Approver Testimony

The Court undertook a detailed examination of Sections 133 and 114 of the Evidence Act and surveyed several landmark precedents dealing with accomplice evidence.

The judgment reiterates that although an accomplice is a competent witness and a conviction can legally rest on uncorroborated accomplice testimony, courts have evolved a rule of prudence requiring corroboration in material particulars before such evidence is relied upon. However, this requirement is not an inflexible rule of law. 

The Court summarized the governing principles as follows:

• Corroboration of approver testimony is a rule of prudence, not a mandatory legal requirement.
• Conviction may be based on uncorroborated approver evidence if the court is satisfied of its reliability.
• Corroboration may be direct or circumstantial.
• Independent evidence need not confirm every material circumstance.
• The corroborative material must make it reasonably safe to rely on the approver’s version. 

Court Rejects Argument that Approver’s Testimony Was Self-Exculpatory

The Supreme Court closely examined the statement of Ashok Kumar, who had turned approver. The Court noted that his testimony did not portray him as a mere spectator.

The approver admitted his presence during the crimes and disclosed his participation in restraining one of the victims while the offences were being committed. He also admitted being part of the plan to steal the truck. Consequently, the Court held that the testimony was not entirely exculpatory and could not be discarded on that ground. 

The Bench observed that merely because the approver did not inflict the fatal injuries himself did not render his evidence unreliable when he had otherwise admitted active participation in the criminal enterprise. 

Corroboration Found in Independent Circumstances

The Court further held that the approver’s account was substantially corroborated by independent evidence.

Among the corroborative circumstances were:

• Recovery and identification of the stolen truck.
• Identification of the deceased persons as the driver and cleaner of the vehicle.
• Discovery of the bodies at locations matching the approver’s narration.
• Recovery of articles and documents linked to the victims.
• Medical evidence confirming homicidal deaths.
• Recovery of the driver’s severed head and other physical evidence consistent with the approver’s account. 

Finding no serious challenge to these corroborative circumstances, the Court concluded that the approver’s testimony was reliable and capable of forming the basis of conviction. 

Conviction Not Invalid Due to Defect in Charge

The appellant had also argued that no proper charge of conspiracy to commit murder had been framed against him.

The Supreme Court referred to Section 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and observed that a conviction is not rendered invalid merely because of an omission or defect in the framing of charges unless actual prejudice or failure of justice is demonstrated. 

The Court noted that the records showed the appellant was aware of the allegations regarding conspiracy to murder. He had pleaded not guilty, participated in the trial and cross-examined witnesses on those very allegations. Consequently, no prejudice was shown to have been caused. 

Supreme Court Explains Scope of Criminal Conspiracy

The judgment contains an extensive discussion on criminal conspiracy under Sections 120-A and 120-B IPC.

The Court reiterated that conspiracy is essentially an agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means. Since conspiracies are seldom proved through direct evidence, courts are entitled to infer their existence from surrounding circumstances, conduct of the accused and the chain of events. 

The Bench also relied upon earlier Supreme Court precedents to reiterate that every member of a conspiracy can be held liable for reasonably foreseeable criminal acts committed by co-conspirators in furtherance of the common objective. 

Case Details

Case Title: Gopi Chand @ Pappu Versus State (NCT Of Delhi)

Citation: JURISHOUR-1476-SC-2026

Case No.: Criminal Appeal No(S). 847 & 848 Of 2014

Date: 29/05/2026

Read More: CESTAT Upholds Rejection of Simplilearn’s Service Tax Refund Appeal as Time-Barred