9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with conditions of pardon under Section 339 CrPC. 2. Examination of the approver under Section 337(2) CrPC. 3. Evidence supporting the charge of abetment of abduction under Sections 364 and 109 IPC. 4. Applicability of Section 363 IPC to the case. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Compliance with conditions of pardon under Section 339 CrPC: The appellant was granted a pardon on the usual terms, which he accepted. However, he retracted his confessional statement during the preliminary enquiry before the committing Magistrate, leading to the prosecution's claim that he did not comply with the conditions of the pardon. The court examined past judgments and concluded that the utmost good faith must be maintained. If the approver fails to make a full and true disclosure at any stage, the pardon can be revoked. The court reaffirmed that the obligation to make a full and true disclosure applies whenever the approver is lawfully called upon to give evidence, whether in the committing court or the sessions court. 2. Examination of the approver under Section 337(2) CrPC: The appellant argued that his conviction was invalid because he was not examined as a witness at the subsequent trial, as required by Section 337(2) CrPC. The court reviewed the amendment made to Section 337(2) in 1923, which clarified that the approver must be examined both in the court of the committing magistrate and at the subsequent trial. The court concluded that the amendment did not alter the principle that the approver's failure to make a full and true disclosure at any stage would result in the forfeiture of the pardon. The court held that the omission to examine the approver in the sessions court did not bar his trial if he had already failed to comply with the conditions of the pardon at an earlier stage. 3. Evidence supporting the charge of abetment of abduction under Sections 364 and 109 IPC: The court examined the evidence to determine whether the appellant abetted the abduction of the deceased. The prosecution's case was that the appellant took a message from P.W. 2 to the Gounders, informing them of the deceased's location. The court found that there was no evidence to show that the appellant induced the deceased to go anywhere or do anything. The appellant's actions amounted to conspiracy or abetment of murder but did not constitute abetment of abduction. The court noted that the appellant's confession did not indicate any involvement in the abduction of the deceased. 4. Applicability of Section 363 IPC to the case: The court held that Section 363 IPC, which deals with kidnapping from India or from lawful guardianship, was not applicable to the case. The deceased was not a minor, nor was he kidnapped from India. The court explained that abduction per se of an adult person is not punishable under the IPC unless it involves elements of force or fraud that attract punishment under other sections. The court further clarified that Sections 364, 365, 366, 367, and 369 IPC deal with specific types of kidnapping or abduction, none of which applied to the appellant's actions. Conclusion: The court concluded that the evidence did not support the findings of the Additional Sessions Judge and that his findings could not support the conviction. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted and ordered to be set at liberty forthwith unless lawfully detained otherwise.
|
