9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Right to cross-examine an accomplice who has been tendered pardon but later had the pardon withdrawn. 2. Legal implications of Sections 306, 307, and 308 of the Cr.P.C. and their application in the case. 3. Status and treatment of an accomplice who has been granted and subsequently forfeited pardon. Summary: 1. Right to Cross-Examine an Accomplice: The primary issue was whether the accused has the right to cross-examine an accomplice who was tendered pardon by the prosecution but later had the pardon withdrawn under Section 308 of the Cr.P.C. The Designated Court allowed the defense to cross-examine the accomplice, treating him as a hostile witness. However, the Supreme Court found this to be an error, stating that once the pardon is forfeited, the accomplice reverts to the status of an accused and cannot be compelled to be a witness. Consequently, there was no justification for permitting the defense to cross-examine him. 2. Legal Implications of Sections 306, 307, and 308 of the Cr.P.C.: Section 306 Cr.P.C. allows for the tender of pardon to an accomplice on the condition of making a full and true disclosure of the circumstances of the offense. Section 307 extends this provision to the trial stage. Section 308 provides for the trial of an accomplice who fails to comply with the conditions of the pardon. The Supreme Court emphasized that the object of these sections is to unravel the truth in grave offenses by using the evidence of an accomplice to convict other accused persons. Once the Public Prosecutor certifies non-compliance with the pardon conditions, the accomplice loses the protection from prosecution and reverts to the status of an accused. 3. Status and Treatment of an Accomplice: The Court clarified that an accomplice who has been granted pardon becomes a witness for the prosecution. If the pardon is forfeited, the accomplice reverts to being an accused and his evidence is rendered useless for the trial of the co-accused. The Designated Court's decision to allow cross-examination was incorrect because the accomplice, upon forfeiture of the pardon, should not be treated as a witness. The Supreme Court cited previous judgments to support this interpretation, including A.J. Peiris v. State of Madras and State v. Hiralal Girdharilal Kothari, which established that a pardon tendered under Section 337 (now Section 306) is a protection from prosecution that is removed upon non-compliance with the pardon conditions. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, ruling that the Designated Court erred in permitting the defense to cross-examine the accomplice after his pardon was forfeited. The accomplice, having reverted to the status of an accused, could not be compelled to be a witness, and his evidence could not be used in the trial against the co-accused.
|
