A. DEIVENDRAN versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 591 · Decided: 21-10-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.N. RAY · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A. DEIVENDRAN 
A 
v. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU 
OCTOBER 21, 1997 
B 
[G.N. RAY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Sections 306, 307, 306(4) and 460 
(g)-Pardon to Co-accused--Grant of-Matter committed to Sessions Judge--
Pardon granted by Chief Judicial Magistrate after commitment of case- C 
Power to grant pardon lies only with the court to which commitment is 
made-Held, after commitment of the proceedings the Sessions Judge had no 
power to remit the matter for grant of pardon to the Chief Judicial Magistrate 
and the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate tendering pardon is without 
jurisdiction not curable under Section 460(g) of the Code-Evidence of D 
approver cannot be relied upon--Pardon to accused under Section 307 after 
commitment of case to court of sessions-Compliance with provisions of 
Section 306(4) is not necessary. 
Evidence Act, 
1872-Section 3-Approver-Evidence of--
Corroboration-Statement of approver implicating several accused- E 
Approver's statement to be corroborated in material particulars-Must be 
tested qua each accused from independent credible evidence-However, 
independent corroboration of every particular circumstances from an 
independent source not necessary. 
Section 114, illustration (a)-Presumption-When can be drawn-
F 
Murder and robbery-Accused entered the house, killed two old ladies and 
car driver and stole jewellery etc.-Ocular Evidence of two witnesses 
establishing commission of offence though they had not seen the assailants--
Corroborated by medical evidence-Stolen jewellery recovered from house 
of main accused on his statement two days after incident and also identified- G 
Held, Presumption can be drawn against main accused under illustration (a) 
to Section 114-0.lfence proved beyond reasonable doubt and accused liable 
to be convicted under Section 302 and 326 /PC-Mere recovery of some 
jewellery belonging to informant after two months of occurrence of incident 
from t.vo other accused-Held, not sufficient to convict them for murder by 
591 
H 
592 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A taking recourse to presumption under illustration (a) to Section 114 but can 
be convicted under Section 411 JPC-Jndian Penal Code, Sections 302, 326 
and 411. 
Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302-Death Sentence-Rarest of 
rare case-Accused killed two ladies by strangulation--Car driver also shot 
B dead as soon as he entered the house-This itself not sufficient to hold that 
it is a act of a depraved mind-Death of number of persons not determinative 
factor for deciding whether extreme penalty of death could be awarded or 
not-Evidence not showing that death of persons either diabolical, ghastly 
or gruesome-Statement of approver taken out of consideration yet ocular 
C evidence of two witnesses follow recovery of arms and stolen jewellery from 
house of accused on his statement-Held, case does not fall within 'rarest of 
rare cases' where extreme penalty of death could be awarded 
The main accused alongwith accused 'RP', accused 'RT', accused B and 
accused 'MR' who was granted pardon and was later examined as approver, 
D hatched a conspiracy to commit robbery. The accused killed two old ladies, a 
car driver and stole jewellery etc. and escaped. FIR was lodged, charge sheet 
was submitted and the Magistrate on being satisfied, committed the five 
accused for trial. The case was committed to court of Sessions; dnring its 
pendency, an application for grant of pardon to accused 'MR' was filed. The 
E court of Sessions forwarded it to Chief J·udicial Magistrate, who granted pardon 
to accused 'MR'. Accused 'MR' was examined as approver before the Sessions 
Judge along with other prosecution witnesses and main accused, accused 'RT' 
and 'RP' were committed under different Sections. Accused B was acquitted 
as Prosecution failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The 
High Court upheld the conviction and sentence passed by Sessions Judge under 
F Section 120B, 148, 449, 302/34 and 326/34 IPC. 
In this appeal challenging the order of the High Court, the appellant 
contended that the Sessions Judge did not exercise his power and on the other 
hand forwarded the matter to be dealt with by the Chief Judicial Magistrate 
G and ultimately the Chief Judicial Magistrate granted pardon to the accused; 
the said order was without jurisdiction and illegal and as such accused 'MR' 
cannot be held to be an approver in the eye of law. Even assuming the orde

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.