Procedure for Granting Pardon After Committal of Case

Overview

The procedure for granting pardon after the committal of a case and the recording of evidence from a few witnesses is primarily governed by Sections 306 and 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The following outlines the key steps and legal principles involved in this process.

Key Legal Provisions

1. Section 306 Cr.P.C.:
2. This section allows a Magistrate to tender pardon to an accomplice before the case is committed to the Sessions Court. It mandates that the approver must make a full and true disclosure of the circumstances within their knowledge regarding the offence and other persons involved.

3. Sub-section (4) specifies that the approver must be examined as a witness, but this requirement is not strictly applicable once the case has been committed to the Sessions Court.

4. Section 307 Cr.P.C.:

5. This section applies after the case has been committed but before the judgment is pronounced. It allows the Sessions Court to grant pardon to an accomplice to obtain their evidence during the trial.
6. The court must ensure that the proposed approver is directly or indirectly concerned with the offence and that their testimony is necessary for the prosecution.

Procedure for Granting Pardon

1. After Committal:

2. The Sessions Court can grant pardon at any time after the case has been committed but before the judgment is delivered. The court must assess whether the accomplice''s evidence is crucial for the trial Santosh Bhimrao Rane VS State of Maharashtra - Bombay (2006)Rahul Yadav VS State - Delhi (2023).

3. Recording of Statements:

4. The requirement to record the statement of the approver under Section 306(4) does not apply once the case is committed. The trial court can proceed to grant pardon based on the evidence presented during the trial Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary VS State Of Maharashtra - Supreme Court (2000)Madan Lal Dogra VS State Of J. &K. - J&K (2009).

5. The approver''s statement must be recorded, and the court must be satisfied that the approver is making a full and true disclosure Rahul Yadav VS State - Delhi (2023)Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary VS State Of Maharashtra - Supreme Court (2000).

6. Judicial Discretion:

7. The court has the discretion to grant pardon based on the nature of the evidence and the complicity of the person seeking pardon. The court must ensure that the conditions for granting pardon are met, which includes a true and full disclosure by the approver Madan Lal Dogra VS State Of J. &K. - J&K (2009)Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary VS State Of Maharashtra - Supreme Court (2000).

Important Considerations

• Cross-Examination Rights: The accused does not have the right to cross-examine the approver at the stage of granting pardon. This right arises only during the trial when the approver''s testimony is presented Santosh Bhimrao Rane VS State of Maharashtra - Bombay (2006)Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary VS State Of Maharashtra - Supreme Court (2000).
• No Requirement for Re-examination: If the approver''s statement is recorded after the pardon is granted, it does not invalidate the pardon as long as the trial court is satisfied with the disclosure made Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary VS State Of Maharashtra - Supreme Court (2000)Madan Lal Dogra VS State Of J. &K. - J&K (2009).
• Potential for Prejudice: While the failure to examine the approver before committal may raise concerns, it does not automatically vitiate the trial if the accused has the opportunity to cross-examine during the trial State Of H. P. VS Surinder Mohan - Supreme Court (2000)Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary VS State Of Maharashtra - Supreme Court (2000).

Conclusion

The procedure for granting pardon after the committal of a case involves careful adherence to the provisions of the Cr.P.C., particularly Sections 306 and 307. The court must ensure that the approver''s testimony is vital for the prosecution and that the conditions for granting pardon are satisfied. The rights of the accused to challenge the approver''s testimony are preserved during the trial phase, ensuring a fair process.

Recommendations

• Ensure that all procedural requirements under Sections 306 and 307 are meticulously followed to avoid any legal challenges.
• Prepare for the trial by gathering corroborative evidence to support the approver''s testimony, as this will be crucial for the prosecution''s case.
• Be ready to address any objections regarding the procedure followed in granting pardon during the trial phase.

References: Santosh Bhimrao Rane VS State of Maharashtra - Bombay (2006)Rahul Yadav VS State - Delhi (2023)Madan Lal Dogra VS State Of J. &K. - J&K (2009)Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary VS State Of Maharashtra - Supreme Court (2000)State Of H. P. VS Surinder Mohan - Supreme Court (2000)]