NARAYAN CHETANRAM CHAUDHARY AND ANR. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 104 · Decided: 05-09-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
NARAYAN CHETANRAM CHAUDHARY AND ANR. 
v. 
ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA 
SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 
[K.T. THOMAS AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.) 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: Sections 306 and 307-Evidence of 
approver-Non-recording by the Magistrate-Effect of-Law mandates 
C satisfaction of the Court that accused would make full and true disclosure 
of the circumstances without his knowledge relating to the crime-It could 
also be recorded after commitment of the case and before the judgment is 
passed 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Sections 161, 162-Statement under 
D interrogation-Held, cannot be used for contradicting witness. 
Penal Code Section 302-Murder of seven females of a family including 
two children and a pregnant woman-One of the accused becoming 
approver-Death sentence for other accused granted by Sessions Court 
confirmed by High Court-Held, rarest of rare case-Hence death sentence 
E confirmed 
Appellants along with one R, committed the murder of seven female 
members of a family including two children and a maid servant. The offence 
of murder was committed with a view to wipe out all evidence of theft and 
robbery committed by the accused. After the case was committed to the 
F Sessions Court and prior to the trial as per the request of the accused R the 
prosecution sought for permission to get his confession recorded which was 
granted by the trial court. The prosecution then filed an application for 
tendering pardon to R on making necessary inquiries and on the condition 
that he shall make true and full disclosure of all facts within his knowledge, 
G which was allowed by the trial court. After trial, the trial court convicted both 
the Appellants and sentenced them to death. The criminal Appeals filed by 
Appellants were dismissed and the death sentence was confirmed by the High 
Court. 
In Appeal to this Court the Appellants submitted that it would be unsafe 
H to award death sentence solely on the basis of testimony of PW2; that there 
104 
. 
NARAYANCHETANRAMCHAUDHARYv. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
105 
are numerous alleged contradictions and improvements in the statement of A 
aforesaid witness PW2; that as the statement of PW2 was not recorded in 
terms of Clause (a) of Sub-section (4) of Section 306, his statement recorded 
by the Trial Court after tendering pardon was illegal; that the statement of 
every accomplice is required to be recorded firstly in the court of the 
Magistrate and subsequently in the Trial Court; that as the statement of PW2 
was recorded only in the Trial Court, the appellant had lost a legal opportunity B 
of having his second statement enabling them to elaborately cross-examine 
him; that as the statement of the Approver was recorded after an unexplained 
prolonged delay, the same could not be made the basis for conviction of the 
accused; that conviction based upon the uncorroborated testimony of the 
Approver is neither safe nor proper particularly in a case where extreme C 
penalty of death is awarded, and that as PW2 has made improvements in his 
statement on material particulars, it would not be safe to rely upon his 
testimony for convicting the appellants and sentencing them to death. The 
appellants contended in the alternative that even if the conviction of the 
appellants is upheld, they may not be sentenced to death keeping in view young 
age and the possibility of their being reformed, and that in no case appellant D 
No. 2 can be sentenced to death as he is alleged to have killed only one child. 
Dismissing the Appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. A perusal of the Sections 306 and 307 Cr.P.C. clearly indicates 
that Section 306 is applicable in a case where the order of commitment has not E 
been passed and Section 307 would be applicable after commitment of the case 
but before the judgment is pronounced. The provisions of sub-section ( 4) (a) of 
Section 306 would be attracted only at a stage when the case is not committed to 
the court of Sessions. After the Commitment, pardon is to be granted by the 
trial court subject to the conditions specified in sub-section (1) of Section 306, F 
i.e. approver making a full and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances 
within his knowledge relative to the offence and to every other person concerned, 
whether as principal or abettor, in the commission thereof. Section 307 in its 
present form does not contemplate the recording of the statement of the approver 
twice as argued. Accepting the submissions made on behalf of the appel

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