Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Amit Sharma, J.
Rahul Yadav & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State & Anr. – Respondents
CRL.M.C. 1274 of 2013 & CRL.M.A. 7269 of 2017 (Stay)
Decided On : 24-03-2023
Pardon - Criminal Procedure - Sections 328/380/411/34 IPC - The court granted the benefit of being an approver to respondent no. 2 under Section 307 read with Section 306(1) of the CrPC. The petitioners challenged the order, contending that respondent no. 2 was the main accused and should not have been granted the benefit of being an approver without imposing any restrictions or conditions. The court held that the grant of pardon is within the exclusive domain of the Court and is subject to the condition that the proposed approver makes a full and true disclosure of the circumstances within their knowledge. The court found that respondent no. 2's statement was inculpatory and satisfied the requirement of Section 306(1) of the CrPC. The court also noted that the nature of evidence sought to be put forth by respondent no. 2 was not available on record and that her testimony was a vital link between the petitioners and the offence committed. The court dismissed the petition, finding that the orders granting pardon to respondent no. 2 did not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an application filed by respondent no. 2 seeking permission to turn approver and grant of pardon under Section 307 read with Section 306(1) of the CrPC. The petitioners challenged the order granting pardon, contending that respondent no. 2 was the main accused and should not have been granted the benefit of being an approver without imposing any restrictions or conditions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that respondent no. 2's statement was inculpatory and satisfied the requirement of Section 306(1) of the CrPC. The court also noted that the nature of evidence sought to be put forth by respondent no. 2 was not available on record and that her testimony was a vital link between the petitioners and the offence committed. The court dismissed the petition, finding that the orders granting pardon to respondent no. 2 did not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.
Issues: The main issue was whether respondent no. 2 should have been granted the benefit of being an approver without imposing any restrictions or conditions, considering her role in the alleged offence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the grant of pardon is within the exclusive domain of the Court and is subject to the condition that the proposed approver makes a full and true disclosure of the circumstances within their knowledge. The court found that respondent no. 2's statement was inculpatory and satisfied the requirement of Section 306(1) of the CrPC. The court also noted that the nature of evidence sought to be put forth by respondent no. 2 was not available on record and that her testimony was a vital link between the petitioners and the offence committed.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, finding that the orders granting pardon to respondent no. 2 did not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.
JUDGMENT
Amit Sharma, J. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`CrPC`) is directed against the orders dated 21.08.2012 and 28.09.2012, passed by Shri Rakesh Siddharth, learned Additional Sessions Judge (`ASJ`), Tis Hazari Courts in SC No. 57/2011, titled `State vs. Jagan Nath & Ors.`, arising out of FIR No. 08/2011, under Sections 380/328 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (`IPC`), registered at PS Tilak Nagar.
2. By way of the aforesaid orders, the learned ASJ, dealt with and allowed the application filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 herein under Section 307 read with Section 306(1) of the CrPC and granted the benefit of being an approver to her.
3. Briefly stated, the facts relevant for adjudication of the present petition are as under:
i. On 08.01.2011, a complaint was filed by the husband of respondent no. 2, alleging that on 08.01.2011, when he got up in the morning at about 10:00/11:00 A.M, he found his father, his brother and his children in an unconscious condition. It was alleged that he saw his wife, i.e., respondent no. 2 for a moment, after which she could not be seen in the house. It was further alleged that he then received a call from his mother-in-law, to whom he explained the aforesaid position and tried to search for respondent no. 2 but she had disappeared. The complainant alleged that he got suspicious and on searching his house, he found that 2 kg of gold and Rs.5 lakh in cash was missing from the locker of his parents.
ii. The complainant further alleged that respondent no. 2 served the family members with coffee and after consuming the same, they had become unconscious. Thereafter, it is stated that the complainant called his uncles, etc. and narrated the whole incident to them. Complainant suspected that respondent no. 2 had done all the said acts knowingly, including the act of committing theft by drugging the former and his family. The complainant sought legal action against her and recovery of the stolen articles.
iii. Accordingly, FIR bearing no. 08/2011, under Section 320/328 of the IPC was registered at PS Tilak Nagar.
iv. It is the case of the prosecution that on the next day, respondent no. 2 was traced from a hotel in Bahadurgarh, Haryana. During her interrogation, she revealed that petitioner no. 1, Rahul Yadav, was her internet friend and often used to chat with her through the internet. It was during these chatting sessions that they exchanged phone numbers and started discussing their family setups/financial and other matters with each other. Petitioner no. 1 projected himself to be a billionaire and slowly lured her and prepared her mind to flee from her home with gold and cash so that they can start living separately. Petitioner no. 1 impressed her by showing fake and false dreams. It was further disclosed that she dreamt of spending her life with petitioner no. 1. It was stated that at the same time, petitioner no. 1 used to threaten her with dire consequences to her children, in case she would not follow his commands.
v. It was further disclosed that one day petitioner no.1 made a plan and convinced her to implement it so that they can live together forever. As per the plan, on 07.01.2011, petitioner no. 1 threw 4-5 pouches of drugs wrapped in paper, in the balcony of respondent no. 2`s house. At about 8:00/9:00 PM, she mixed the said drugs with coffee and served it to the family members. As a result, every member of respondent no. 2`s family became unconscious. As planned, she decamped with 2 kg gold and Rs.5 lakh cash from the house on 08.01.2011, at about 12:00 PM. As a result of consuming the laced coffee, Mr. Gulshan (father-in-law), Mrs. Saroj (mother-in-law) and Raman (brother-in-law/dewar) were admitted in Kalra Hospital on 08.01.2011 and got discharged from on 09.01.2011. Respondent no. 2 further confessed that after fleeing from home, she joined petitioner no. 1 in an already waiting car and they went to a hotel in Bahadurgarh, Haryana where
The grant of pardon is within the exclusive domain of the Court and is subject to the condition that the proposed approver makes a full and true disclosure of the circumstances within their knowledge....
The provisions of Section 306(4)(a) of the Cr.P.C. are not attracted if an accused is tendered pardon after the commitment by the Court to which the proceeding is committed in exercise of powers unde....
Point of Law : Legal proposition, which can be crystallized from the discussion made herein above, is that -making a full and true disclosure of the whole circumstances within his knowledge, relating....
Section 306 of Cr.P.C. dealing with tendering of pardon, pardon is a permissible exercise of power by concerned Court and if full disclosure of fact are coming about in terms of said pardon, such par....
Grant of pardon in a scheduled offence does not automatically absolve the accused from facing trial under PMLA unless the accused seeks pardon in the PMLA case by making a full and true disclosure of....
The court ruled that a second application for pardon under Section 306 of the Cr.P.C. is maintainable only on changed circumstances, and recording a confession statement prior to granting pardon is i....
Court clarified the procedure for granting pardon to accomplices under Section 306 Cr.P.C., emphasizing its critical role in prosecuting serious offenses while ensuring adherence to legal standards.
The court established that a trial court should not prejudge the merits of evidence when considering an application for granting pardon under Section 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
