The object of tendering pardon to an accomplice

 

THE OBJECT OF TENDERING PARDON TO AN                           ACCOMPLICE

 

WHO IS AN ACCOMPLICE

Cr.P.C. does not define the expression “accomplice” and does not employ the word “ approver” in any of the above provisions. But the word accomplice is to be found in Section 133 and Illustration (b) to Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which, however, does not define the said word . An “accomplice“ is an associate in wrong or crime whether as principal or accessory. Black’s Law Dictionary defines an “accomplice” as a person who is in any way involved with another in the commission of a crime, whether as a principal in the first or second degree or as an accessory. It proceeds to elucidate further by saying that a person is an accomplice of another in committing a crime, if, with the intent to promote or facilitate the commission of the crime, he solicits, requests or commands the other person to commit it or aids the other person in planning or committing it. In M.O. Shamsudhin v. State of Kerala (1995) 3 SCC 351 it was observed by the Apex Court that the word “accomplice when used in its ordinary sense means and signifies “a guilty partner or associate in a crime”. An accomplice is a person who participates in the commission of the actual crime charged against an accused. He is to be a particeps criminis (sharer of crime). An accomplice is a guilty associate or partner in crime. He is a privy to the wrong or crime committed whether as principal or accessory. But every participation in a crime does not make a person an accomplice and it depends upon the nature of the offence and the extent of the complicity of the witness in it so as to persuade the court to look for corroboration as a rule of prudence, if necessary.

WHO IS AN APPROVER ?

 The Cr.P.C. does not use the word “approver” in any of the provisions . An “approver” is a person who offers proof. He is a criminal who confesses and testifies against one or more accomplices. An approver is thus a person, who while confessing the felony committed by himself accuses others to be guilty of the same crime. Approver’s confession is called “relative confession” which involves a confession of guilt coupled with an accusation of guilt against another person as a participant in the crime. If the accusation against the other person was proved, then the accusing defendant was pardoned. If not, the accusing defendant was convicted on his own confession. While every approver is an accomplice, every accomplice need not necessarily be an approver. An accomplice who is prepared to confess his own guilt as well as the guilt of his associate in crime, is an approver. To quote the Privy Council in Bhuboni Sahu v. The King AIR 1949 PC 257, an approver is on his own admission, a man of bad character who took part in the offence and afterwards to save himself, betrays his former associates. The tendency of approvers to include the innocent with the guilty, was taken judicial notice of in the above verdict.

THE OBJECT OF TENDERING PARDON                 TO AN ACCOMPLICE

 Many a time the crime is committed in such a manner that no clue or any trace is available for its detection. Hence, pardon is granted to a partner in crime for apprehending the other offenders so that incriminating objects and other evidence, which is otherwise unobtainable could be unearthed. The dominant object behind the Legislature introducing Section 306 Cr.P.C and confining its operation to the class of cases mentioned therein, was to ensure that the offenders of heinous and grave crimes, do not go unpunished. The basis of tender of pardon is not the magnitude of the culpability of the person to whom pardon is granted but prevention of the escape of the offenders from punishment in heinous crimes due to lack of evidence. There can, therefore, be no objection against tender of pardon to an accomplice simply because he in his confession does not implicate himself to the same extent as the other accused because all that Section 306 requires is that pardon may be tendered to any person believed to be involved directly or indirectly in or privy to an offence. The salutary principle of tendering pardon to an accomplice is to unravel the truth in a grave offence so that guilt of the other accused persons concerned in the commission of crime could be brought home.  

Paragraph 6 of Saravanabhavan Govindaswami v. State of Madras AIR 1966 SC 1273 – 5 Judges – M. Hidayatullah – J, shows that the pardon in that case was tendered to a 20 year old boy by name Sukran (PW 2) and he was examined as an approver in that case.