Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

23. Admittedly, in the case in hand, no pardon was tendered by P.W-7 either before any Magistrate during investigation or trial before the Sessions Judge. As such, P.W-7 cannot be treated as accomplice/approver as per provision of 306 Cr.P.C which reads as follows:-

"Section-306, tender of pardon to accomplice:- (1) With a view to obtaining the evidence of any person supposed to have been directly or indirectly concerned in or privy to an offence to which this section applies, the Chief Judicial Magistrate or Page No.# 11/21 a Metropolitan Magistrate at any stage of the investigation or inquiry into, or the trial of, the offence and the Magistrate of the first class inquiring into or trying the offence, at any stage of the inquiry or trial, may tender a pardon to such person on condition of his making a full and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances within his knowledge relative to the offence and to every other person concerned, whether as principal or abettor, in the commission thereof."

29. In the case in hand, as we have already mentioned that no pardon was tendered by P.W-7 before any Magistrate during investigation or trial and learned Sessions Judge also did not take any initiative to implead him as accused alongwith the present appeallant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The evidence of P.W-7 has not been challenged in the trial Court and no objection was raised by the appellant/accused on his examination as P.W-7 who was cross-examined at length, but there was no whisper from the side of the appellant/accused by not following the provision under Section 306 Cr.P.C.

36. In the case of Chandran @ Manichan @ Maniyan and others Vs. State of Kerala, (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 551, challenging the admissibility of evidence of P.W. 53 accomplice/approver witness who had neither been granted pardon under section 306 Cr.P.C. nor was he prosecuted, it was held that:-

"evidence of such a witness subject to usual caution is admissible evidence and the contention of inadmissibility of his evidence for want of pardon, was rejected being of no consequence".

37. In the case of A Devendran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu 1998 SCC (Cri) 220, where order granting pardon was held incurable for want of jurisdiction, the evidence of approver of having participated in the commission of the offence, though not to the same extent as the main accused, it was held "that the statement of such witness cannot be said to be of exculpatory nature and on that score his evidence cannot be excluded from consideration".

38. Reverting back to the present case, upon hearing the parties, perusal of record and in view of the aforesaid legal propositions, we have come to the conclusion that:-

(i) the irregularity if any committed in tendering pardon to an accused does not vitiate the proceedings, in view of provisions of section 460 and 307 of Cr.P.C.
(ii) the prosecution may produce an accused as prosecution witness even if he was not tendered pardon under section 306 Cr.P.C and his evidence may not be Page No.# 17/21 discarded for want of valid tender of pardon.