Pardon must be accepted to engage section 339, while complete circumstantial evidence can sustain murder conviction.

A mere tender of pardon does not trigger the bar under section 339 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 unless the pardon is accepted and becomes effective; because there was no proof of acceptance and the accused later refused to become an approver, the plea failed and the trial was not vitiated. Circumstantial evidence was also held sufficient to sustain liability under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as the proved circumstances-last seen together, immediate departure, injuries soon after the , and additional blood-linked material evidence-formed a complete chain inconsistent with innocence. The convictions and death sentences were maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a mere tender of pardon, without acceptance, attracted the bar and consequences under section 339 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. (ii) Whether the circumstantial evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants participated in the murder and were liable under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Issue (i): Whether a mere tender of pardon, without acceptance, attracted the bar and consequences under section 339 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

Analysis: The provisions governing pardon contemplate not merely a tender, but its acceptance by the person concerned, followed by examination as a witness. Section 339 operates only after an effective pardon has been accepted and the approver thereafter fails to comply with the condition attached to it. On the record, there was no proof that the accused had accepted the pardon, and the later proceedings showed a refusal to become an approver.

Conclusion: The plea based on section 339 failed, and the trial was not vitiated on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the circumstantial evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants participated in the murder and were liable under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Analysis: The evidence showed the appellants moving towards the shop, being last seen with the deceased, leaving soon after the occurrence, and being found with injuries shortly thereafter. Against one appellant there was the additional incriminating circumstance of signed cash memos stained with blood and a blood-stained shirt. Against the other appellant there was the further circumstance of a wrapper bearing attempted burn marks over bloodstains. The Court held that the circumstances formed a complete chain inconsistent with innocence and sufficient to establish participation in the murder beyond reasonable doubt.

Conclusion: The conviction of both appellants under section 302/34 was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed in their entirety, and the convictions and death sentences were maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: A mere tender of pardon does not attract section 339 unless the pardon is accepted and becomes effective, and a conviction based on circumstantial evidence is sustainable where the proved circumstances form a complete and coherent chain pointing unerringly to guilt.

---