You are on page 1of 3

(1)As far as third issue is concerned. The counsel wants to humbly plead that as nowhere in the Crpc.

`Approver` is defined but in general paralance an approver is someone who is involved in a crime, but who confesses and offers to serve as a witness for the prosecution. In exchange for the confession and testimony, the approver is given a pardon for his or her role in the crime. Allowing people to confess in exchange for concessions such as a pardon encourages people with information about crimes they were involved in to come forward, facilitating law enforcement investigations and increasing the likelihood that a case can be successfully prosecuted and brought to a close. Technically, an approver is an accomplice and involved in the planning, execution, or cover up of the crime. The accomplice may have known that the crime was going to happen and not taken any steps to prevent it, or may have engaged in other activities which were designed to make the crime easier to commit or less likely to be detected. This gives the approver a rather unique insight on the crime, as he or she was directly involved. (2) As far as the confession of an approver in concerned, it was presumed on the part of approver that he will furnish the information to the best of his knowledge because he was granted pardon, but there are also chances of false information, there are primarily three reasons for viewing such statements with an eye of suspicion: (a) because an accomplice is likely to swear falsely in a bid to shift the guilt from himself; (b)because an accomplice, as a participator in the crime, being presumed an immoral person, is likely to disregard the oath; (c) because he gives his evidence under promise of a pardon, if he discloses all he knows against those with whom he acted criminally and this hope would lead him to favour the prosecution. An accomplice becomes approver when he granted pardon under sec 306/307 of cr.pc. This section deals with the subject of tender of pardon to an accomplice. It can come into effect only when the offence is one which is: (i) punishable with imprisonment of seven years or upwards (ii) triable exclusively by the court of session. (iii) triable by a special judge under criminal law amendment act,19521

(3) The object of this section is to obtain true evidences of offences by the grant of pardon to accomplice so as to prevent the escape of offender from punishment for lack of evidence. 2 The object is to obtain evidence of an accomplice so as to facilitate conviction of others. The power to grant pardon is not a inherent power of criminal court. It is a substantive power which has to be specially conferred.3 The reasons for tendering a pardon to any person must be stated. In the
1 2

State of Punjab v. H.G. Khotari, AIR 1960 SC 360 Alagirisami, (1910) 33 Mad 514,517 3 Harshad S. Mehta v. state of Maharastara, (2001) 8 SCC 257

cases in which a pardon is tendered, the intended approver should always be made clearly to understand the extent of the pardon offered to him : it should be explained to him that he is being tendered a pardon and will not be prosecuted in respect of such and such a case, and no others. The person who has accepted the pardon must be examined as the witness.4 (4) keeping all these provision related to pardon, the pardon granted to mr. Guruprasad in this case. In this case he was eligilble to be an approver he was directly concerned with the case and he himself offered to be an approver5 this shows that he voluntarily decided to be the approver. It shows that whatever confession made by mr. Guruprasad is free from any inducement, threat and promise. This makes the confessional statement of mr.Guruprasad valid because it was made in immediate presence of magistrate and it was free from any inducement, threat and promise. But at the later stage he retracted from his confessional statement and he demanded to be put on trial. He was justified in doing so, he has every right to retract from his statement under section 308 of crpc. (5)For the retraction of the confession of an approver, the approver has oppurtunity to retract from his confession by filing a petition regarding his retraction in the trial court. Then the prosecution is entitled to move a petition informing the court that the approver wants to retract from his statement and it also pray the court for the withdrawl of the pardon granted under section 306/307 crpc. after the withdrawl of the pardon sec 308 crpc. apply to the approver which deals with the trial of person not complying with the condition of pardon. it reads as where, in regard to a person who has accepted a tender of pardon made under section 306 or section 307, the public prosecutor certifies that in his opinion such person has, either by willfully concealing anything essential or by giving false evidence, not complied with the condition on which the tender was made, such person may be tried for the offence in respect of which the pardon was so tendered or for any other offence which he appears to have been guilty in connection with the same matter, and also for the offence of giving false evidence.6 Here it is stated that after withdrawl of the pardon the accomplice lost the status of approver and he may treated as a accused and tried for the respective offence which he seems to be involved in. (6) It is well established in law that a approver had right to retract. Even an accused of any person can`t be compelled to be witness against himself.7this is fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution of India. As far as criminal cases are concerned there is no any defined stage in Crpc ,where an approver can retract from his confession. But generally it can be done before the stage of section 227 and 228 of crpc. i.e. discharge and framing of charge respectively. At this stage learned session court is satisfied or dissatisfied with the evidences produce before it. If the produced evidences are not enough to establish a strong suspicion about the involvement of the
4 5

Bipin Bihari Sarkar v. state of west Bengal. AIR 1959 SC 13 See para no.3 fact sheet 6 Sec 308 (1) Crpc. 7 article 20 (3) constitution of India,1950

accused in the commission of crime then it will discharge on the other hand when court is satisfied that evidence on record is sufficient to establish a strong suspicion on about the involvement of accused in the commission of crime then it order for framing of charges. So at this stage the court only give order about discharge or framing of charge. So every retraction should be done before this stage and not at this stage. In this case the same thing happened to the approver retracted from his statement during the filing of chargesheet and then pardon was recalled and charges were framed against the accused. (7) Taking into consideration the present fact it is very clear that Mr. guruprasad upon committal and framing of charges, retracted from his confession and pleaded innocence he demanded to be put to trial and he never challenged the charges so learned session court recalled the conditional pardon and directed the framing of charges against mr. guruprasad. Even though he retracted from his confession it`s evidentiary value in not completely lost and learned session court found it sufficient for framing of charges against her.