Court Can Grant Pardon to Accomplice for Truthful Testimony Under Section 307 CrPC/344 BNSS: Chhattisgarh High Court
📌 Case Name:
Vishal Khandelwal v. State of Chhattisgarh
Chhattisgarh High Court
Date of Judgment: July 2024
Coram: Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
🧾 Background of the Case
In this case, a co-accused turned approver had moved an application under Section 307 CrPC, seeking pardon in exchange for full and true disclosure of the events connected to a major financial scam and conspiracy involving multiple persons.
The Trial Court had rejected the application, holding that the prosecution should initiate such a request and the court could not act independently.
The matter was taken up in revision before the High Court, challenging this rejection.
⚖️ Legal Framework
🔹 Section 307 CrPC (Pre-BNSS):
Empowers the Court to tender pardon to an accomplice at any stage after commitment but before judgment, on the condition that the person:
Makes a full and true disclosure of the whole circumstances within their knowledge
Is believed to be directly or indirectly involved in the offence
🔹 Section 344 BNSS (Post-2023 replacement of CrPC):
Mirrors Section 307 CrPC and continues to allow the court to grant pardon in exchange for a truthful confession, even if the trial has already begun, provided the disclosure is essential for justice.
🧑⚖️ Observations by the High Court
The Chhattisgarh High Court took a progressive and purposive view of the law.
1. Power of the Court is Independent
The Court held that it is not mandatory that only the prosecution can initiate the process. The court, suo motu or on the application of the accused, can consider granting pardon if it believes the testimony is crucial for uncovering the truth.
"The objective of Section 307 CrPC / Section 344 BNSS is to aid the administration of justice, not to serve procedural rigidity."
2. Truthful Disclosure is Key
The pardon is conditional and not automatic. The accomplice must:
Be willing to disclose all material facts
Show remorse or willingness to cooperate
Not suppress or mislead during the testimony
If the statement later turns out to be false or incomplete, the pardon can be revoked and the person can be tried again.
3. Pardon is a Tool of Justice
The Court emphasized that pardon is not a concession to the guilty, but a strategic legal tool used to:
Break criminal conspiracies
Secure convictions of principal offenders
Reveal hidden or complex chains of criminal activity
"In cases involving conspiracy or organised crime, the role of an insider—willing to turn approver—becomes essential."
4. Reference to Precedents
The Court referred to the landmark Supreme Court ruling in:
State v. Jagjit Singh (1989)
Where it was held that the court has discretion to grant pardon and such discretion must be used judiciously in the interest of justice.
🚨 Decision of the High Court
The High Court set aside the trial court’s rejection order
Directed that the accomplice’s application for pardon be reconsidered
Stated that the Trial Court should evaluate the sincerity and truthfulness of the proposed testimony, not merely rely on whether the prosecution has filed the application
✅ Key Legal Principles from This Judgment
Courts can independently grant pardon under Section 307 CrPC / Section 344 BNSS
The objective is to aid justice, not to reward wrongdoers
Truthful, voluntary, and complete disclosure is essential
Court must apply judicial mind—not just follow the prosecution’s lead
Pardon can be revoked if the statement is false or misleading
🔚 Conclusion
This ruling by the Chhattisgarh High Court reinforces the judicial independence and discretion of courts in granting pardon to accomplices, especially in complex cases involving conspiracy or organised crime. It clarifies that the truthful cooperation of an insider can be a powerful tool in the criminal justice system, and that procedural limitations should not hinder the quest for truth and justice.
RELATED Blog
0 comments