Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. In this criminal trial, there are altogether 45 witnesses on the side of Ihe prosecution and, apart from their oral testimony, this court has come across the oral testimony of the approver Sudipa Pal who figured as P.W. 2 and there has been placement of many documents which had been exhibited in this case. P.W. 2 appears to be an eye witness to the incident resulting in termination of life of four persons and she narrated in detail the diabolical act of cold blooded murder as a result of which the entire family Is almost extinguished from the scene of life barring P.W. 2, namely, Sudlpa hereself. It is necessary to refer that Sudlpa was initially an accused in the case and the police on completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against her and also against Ranadhlr and Krishnendu on December 20, 1991. When the investigation of the case was in the process and it was progressing, Sudlpa made a confessional statement which was recorded by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 11.10.91. It, however, appears from the materials on record that on 13-1-92 the accused Sudipa Pal submitted an application before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore for grant of pardon to her. In (hat application she gave an assurance of making a full and true disclosure of the entirely of circumstances within her knowledge relating to the commission of offence and in consideration of said application and after examination of the applicant, the learned SDJM under order dated 15.1.92 tendered pardon to Sudlpa under section 306 Cr.PC on being satisfied that she was going to make a full and complete disclosure of facts. The said order was passed in connection with G.R. Case No. 1326 of 1991 and relevant case record of the Magistrate was marked as Exhibit 151. The order dated 15.1.92 as aforesaid shows that Sudipa accepted pardon on that date. It is necessary to refer to the provisions of section 306 Cr.PC in its entirety and full and true disclosure of facts may be made to the Magistrate for trial. The moment an accused is pardoned, the said accused will be presumed to discharge his or her onus and becomes a witness. It has been observed in the order of sentence Itself that--"Therefore, by the tender of pardon and acceptance of the same, Sudipa Pal has ceased to be and accused and has become a witness for the prosecution, her only obligation being that there should be full and true disclosure by her throughout the proceeding".

5. Mr. Dilip Kumar Datta, learned counsel for the accused appellant No. 1, has submitted before this court that provisions of section 306(4)(a) Cr.PC has not been complied with. According to him, there arc certain mandatory requirements which are envisaged under the said provisions but are not being compiled with. In support of the said submissions, Mr. Dalta has relied on the case of Suresh Ch. Bahri v. State of Bihar, reported 1995 SCc (Criminal) 60. It has been contended by placement of the aforesaid decision that the provision contained in clause (a) of sub-section (4) of section 306 Cr.PC is of a mandatory nature and not merely directory and, therefore, non-compliance of the same would render the committal order illegal. It has been further pointed out by Mr. Dutta that the examination of the approver at two stages has been provided for and if the said mandatory provision is not complied with, the entire proceeding would be vitiated. A further reference has been made by Mr. Datta to the case of A. Devendran v. State of Tamilnadu, reported 1998 SCC (Criminal) 220. Special attention of ours has been drawn from a portion of the said cited decision that the procedure enacted in sub-section (4) (a) of section 306 Is in tended to provide a safeguard to an accused inasmuch as the approver has to make an evidence at the preliminary stage before the committal order and thereby the accused becomes aware of the evidence against him and, further, such evidence of approver can be shown as untrustworthy during trial when the approver makes no contradiction from or to his earlier version. But still when the legislature in section 307 has made specific reference to only such condition and not to other procedures in section 306, it would not be a rule of interpretation as a whole though even sub-section (4) of section 306 would also be applicable in such a case.

6. This court is alive to the proposition as elucidated by the apex court and has understood the pith and substance of the same. Before dealing with this aspect in detail, it is worthwhile to refer to other provisions referred by Mr. Datta, namely when Mr. Datta has submitted that evidence of the approver has been recorded in his chamber and not in court and to that an exception has been sought to be taken by Mr. Datta. Mr. Datta has submitted and complained that the same has been recorded behind the back of the concerned accused persons and no opportunity was given to cross-examine them. In order to assess the said contentions raised by Datta, a probe is necessary with regard to the factual position as emanating from the records. It appears that in itially the 2nd court of Additional Sessions Judge, North 24-Parganas detected that approver Sudipa Pal who had accepted pardon granted by the learned Committing Magistrate to her under section 306(1) Cr.PC had not been examined by any witness under section 306(4) Cr.PC nor was any opportunity given for the cross-examination of the accused. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, North 24-Parganas passed Order No. 8 dated 28.3.92 for remitting the case to the trial court. In terms of the provisions of section 209 read with section 306 (4) and (5) the learned Additional Sessions Judge in his afforesald order directed production of the accused Ranadhir Basu and the approver Sudlpa Pal who were then in Jail custody before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore. At the material point of time there was also direction for appearance of accused Krishnendu Jana who was then at the court below before the said Magistrate. Being aggrieved by that order the accused No. 1 Ranadhir Basu preferred Criminal Revision No. 1526/92 and accused No. 2 preferred criminal revision No. 1527/92 respectively before the High Court which were disposed of by the order dated 14.7.1992. In the said order it was directed that the Committing Magistrate would record the evidence of the approver Sudipa and at the time of examination of the approver by the learned Committing Magistrate, an opportunity would be required to be given to the accused for cross-examination. The lower court record, particularly Exhibit '151' reveals as to what had happened thereafter. In view of the High Court's order, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore fixed 4th November, 1992 for examination of the approver Sudipa under section 306 of Cr.PC and the said order was passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate on 24th September. 1992 in presence of the approver Sudlpa Pal, accused Ranadhir Basu and the accused Krishnendu Jana.

7. Learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate examined the approver Sudlpa Pal under section 306(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and recorded her evidence in part and fixed 9th November 1992 for further examination of the approver. Exhibit '151' bears a sufficient testimony about the recording of evidence of Sudipa in terms of section 306(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure and directed supply of copies of the approver's evidence so recorded by him, to the accused in order to enable them to cross-examine the approver. It appears from the order dated 25th November, 1992 passed by the learned Committing Magistrate that on 25th November, 1992 copies of the evidence of the approver having been supplied to the accused the learned Magistrate fixed 9th December, 1992 for cross-examination of Sudlpa Pal. When cross-examination of the approver was taken up none appeared for the accused Ranadhir Basu to cross-examine Sudlpa while the learned lawyer appearing for accused No. 2 Krishnendu declined to cross-examine the approver. Exhibit '151' lends credence to such finding being recorded in the Impugned judgment under challenge. PW 31, viz., M.M. Ghosh, the learned Committing Magistrate in his examInation-in-chief has deposed that he recorded accused Sudipa Pal's confessional statement (Ext.'7') under section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure and granted pardon to her taking her as an approver and also recorded her statement (Ext. '8') under section 306(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Ext. '8' having been recorded by P.W. 31 after the passing or order No. 8 dated 28th March, 1992 by the Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, North 24-Parganas and of the order dated 14th July, 1992 by the High Court. There are sufficient material to draw an in ference that the approver was examined in terms of section 306(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Exhibit '8' cannot but be regarded as the approver's evidence and recorded under section 306(4) of Code of Criminal dealing with the procedure it has been observed that the court in cludes a Judge in chamber. Even a reference in this contest may be made to the provisions of section 327 of Code of Criminal Procedure which in terms of sub-section (2) and the proviso empowers the court to hold a proceeding in camera in respect of trial with regard to a charge under section 376 of the in dian Penal Code and under the ancilliary proceedings. Even otherwise, in terms of proviso super-added to section 327(1) a Presiding Judge or Magistrate, if he thinks fit at any stage of an enquiry or trial he can order the same to be held in camera.