Case Note & Summary
The case involved a series of explosions in May 1985 in Delhi and Uttar Pradesh, leading to multiple fatalities and the registration of several FIRs, including FIR No. 238 of 1985. The respondent, Jagjit Singh, along with another accused, was granted pardon under Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, and turned approver. However, he later resiled from his statements made in the Committing Magistrate's court, leading to a dispute over his examination as a witness. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate initially dismissed his objection to being summoned as an approver, but the High Court later allowed his revision petition, directing that he not be examined as a witness. The State appealed this decision, arguing that the respondent's acceptance of the pardon mandated his examination as a witness, regardless of his later retraction. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution was obliged to examine the approver in both the Committing Court and the trial court, emphasizing that the approver's status as a witness persisted until the Public Prosecutor certified otherwise. The court also addressed concerns regarding self-incrimination, affirming that the respondent was protected under Section 132 of the Indian Evidence Act, which shields witnesses from prosecution based on their testimony. Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and reinstating the obligation to examine the respondent as a witness.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Examination of Approver - Obligation to Examine - Section 306 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - The prosecution is mandated to examine an approver granted pardon as a witness in both the Committing Court and the trial court, regardless of whether the approver has resiled from his statement. The court held that the approver's obligation to testify remains until the Public Prosecutor certifies non-compliance with the conditions of the pardon (Paras 1097-1100). B) Evidence Law - Protection of Witness - Section 132 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - A witness is legally bound to answer relevant questions even if the answers may incriminate him, with protection against prosecution based on such answers. The court found the respondent's fears of self-incrimination to be unfounded, affirming his protection under the law (Paras 1100-1101).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent, having resiled from his statement, could be examined as a witness after being granted pardon under Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and reinstating the obligation to examine the respondent as a witness in both the Committing Court and the trial court.
Law Points
- Pardon under Section 306
- Examination of approver
- Witness protection under Section 132
- Criminal Procedure Code
- 1973
- Indian Evidence Act
- 1872
