State of Delhi Administration v. Jagjit Singh, AIR 1989 SC 598,
The question that arose for consideration was whether an approver could be forced to give evidence. The petitioner and others were accused in connection with several explosions that killed many people in Delhi. Of the several accused the petitioner and another, in the course of the investigation turned in favour of the prosecution and therefore the prosecution made them approvers and they were granted pardon by the lower court. Subsequently they retracted from their earlier statements and refused to give evidence. It was held by the Supreme Court that, once he turned an approver and a pardon is granted to him he ceases to be an accused and he turns a witness for the prosecution. Therefore, S 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code requires him to make a full and true disclosure of the entire circumstances in his knowledge. Therefore he is legally bound to make the disclosure even if it is incriminatory. Therefore, the argument under 20(3) cannot be sustained.
|Comparative Bills of Rights || Contact us ||Search|