RANADHIR BASU versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [2000] 1 S.C.R. 646 · Decided: 07-02-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.T. NANAVATI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RANADHIR BASU 
v. 
ST A TE OF WEST BENGAL 
FEBRUARY 7, 2000 
B 
[G.T NANAVATI AND S.N. PHUKAN JJ] 
Criminal Procedure Code, i'973-Section 306( 4 )-Examination of ap-
prove1~Procadin!( before the Magistrate before the committal order is made 
is neither an inquuy nor a triaf-Plea of approver being examined in open 
C court and not in chambe1~Not sustainable--Further presence of accused 
when approver is examined and giv;ng opportunity to accused to cross-examine 
approver is not necessary. 
Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 302. 
D 
Death »entence-Accused and 'S' wanted to remove mother of 'S' from 
this world--}vfother of 'S' was made to eat 'Kalojam' with poison-At 110 point 
of time accused had planned to kill father and grand-parents of 'S'-Accused 
killed them out of confusion and ftight that he would be named as the 
murderer of S'i· mother-On facts it is not a fit case in which death sentence 
E can be regarded as an appropliate prt11fa1iment-TI1us, sentence reduced to 
!if e implisonment 
Words & Phmses-'Examination o; a witness'-Meaning of 
The appellant-accused arnl one 'K' were tried for committing mur· 
F ders of the parents and grand parents of one 'S' in the Court of Sessions 
Judge. 
'S' was ill treated by her mother. The appellant and 'S' wanted her 
to be removed from the world. Numerous attempts were made to kill S's 
mother. The appellant procured poison from one 'K'. On the fateful day 
G 'S's mother was made to eat the 'Kalojam' mixed with poison. Till then 
there was not even remotest desire on the part of the appellant to kill S's 
father or her grandparents. The appellant killed them out of the confusion 
and fright that he would be named as the murderer of S's mother. The 
police arrested the appellant and 'K' and filed chargesheet against them. 
H Later on 'S' was granted pardon. Then 'S' was examined as approver but 
646 
( 
' ' 
RANDHIR BASL' v. STATE 
647 
not as a witness as contemplated by Section 304( 4) of the Criminal 
Procedure Code. Magistrate examined 'S' in his chamber and not in the 
open court and her evidence was also not subjected to cross-examination. 
Thereafter, the case was committed to the Sessions Court for trial. The 
Sessions Judge rejected the contention that the trial was vitiated as 
mandatory requirement of Section 306(4) of the Code were not complied 
with and after appreciating evidence of the approver, convicted appellant 
under Sections 302 read with 120-B and 201 of Indian Penal Code and 'K' 
under Sections 302 read with 109 of the Code, imposing death sentence on 
both of them. The appellant and 'K' challenged the conviction and sentence 
A 
B 
in separate appeals. The High Court confirmed the conviction and sen· 
tence of the appellant but giving benefit of doubt to 'K' acquitted him. 
C 
Hence this appeal. 
Partly allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. Section 306(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code does not 
mandate that approver must be examined in the open court in the presence D 
of the accused and that the accused must be given opportunity to cross· 
examine the approver. The object and purpose of examining the person 
accepting tender of pardon as a witness is thus limited and the proceedings 
which takes place before the Magistrate at that stage is neither an inquiry 
nor a trial. (655-E] 
E 
Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar, [1995) Supp. I SCC 80, 
distinguished. 
1.2. The cross-examination of approve1· was for different reasons ad-
journed from time to time and the last date fixed. On that day the advocate 
F 
of the appellant did not remain present and the appellant declined to cross-
examine the approver. The lawyer representing co-accused also declined to 
cross-examine her. Therefore, it cannot be said that the mandatory require-
ment of Section 306( 4) was not complied with by examining the approver by 
the Magistrate in the absence of the appellant and not giving an opportunity G 
to the appellant to cross-examine her. (656-E] 
1.3. The phrase "examination of a witness" does not necessarily mean 
examination and cross examination of that witness. The type of examina-
tion of a witness contemplated would depend upon the object and purpose 
of the provision. Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also- · H 
648 
SUPREME COCRT REPORTS 
[2CCOJ 1 S.C.R. 
A contemplates examination of witness yet it has been held, considering the 
object and purpose of that provision, that the accused has no lucus standi 
at the stage of the trial

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