9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Conviction under s. 120B and s. 224/109 of the Indian Penal Code and s. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (2 of 1947); Admissibility of approver's evidence; Accomplice testimony; Test identification parade; Compliance with s. 233 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; Jurisdiction of District Magistrate to grant pardon under s. 337 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Analysis: 1. The appellants, police constables, were convicted under various sections and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment. Their appeals to the Punjab High Court were dismissed, leading to the present appeals in the Supreme Court. 2. The prosecution alleged that the appellants conspired to help an undertrial prisoner escape and accepted illegal gratification. The courts found the appellants guilty of aiding the escape and receiving money. 3. The defense raised several points, including the jurisdiction of the pardon granted to the approver, the nature of the conspiracy offense, the status of prosecution witnesses as accomplices, absence of a test identification parade, and non-compliance with s. 233 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. The Court found that the witnesses were not accomplices, and their evidence was reliable. The absence of a test identification parade did not render the identification evidence inadmissible. 5. While separate charges should have been framed as per s. 233, the irregularity was considered cured under s. 537. The defense's objections during trial were deemed abandoned, and no prejudice was established. 6. The Court addressed the offense classification issue, noting that even if the offense fell under a different section, the convictions under the Prevention of Corruption Act were valid. The lack of challenge regarding the sanction under s. 196A was also noted. 7. The primary issue was the jurisdiction of the District Magistrate to grant a pardon under s. 337. The Court analyzed the relevant provisions and concluded that the District Magistrate had the authority to grant a pardon in this case. 8. The High Court's findings supported the appellants' conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and no grounds were found to overturn the conviction. 9. Ultimately, the appeals were dismissed, affirming the convictions of the appellants under the relevant sections. This detailed analysis covers the key legal issues and the Court's reasoning in the judgment.
|
