TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Invalidates Pardon, Commutes Sentence</h1> <h3>A. Deivendran Versus State of T.N.</h3> A. Deivendran Versus State of T.N. - (1997) 11 SCC 720 Issues Involved:1. Validity of the pardon granted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.2. Non-compliance with Sub-section (4)(a) of Section 306 of the CrPC.3. Reliability of the approver's evidence.4. Sufficiency of evidence excluding the approver's testimony.5. Appropriateness of the death sentence for accused Devendran.Summary:1. Validity of the pardon granted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate:The Supreme Court examined whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) had the jurisdiction to grant pardon after the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The Court concluded that u/s 307 of the CrPC, only the Court to which the commitment is made can tender pardon, and not the CJM. The order of the CJM granting pardon was held to be without jurisdiction and not curable under Section 460(g) of the CrPC.2. Non-compliance with Sub-section (4)(a) of Section 306 of the CrPC:The Court addressed whether non-compliance with Sub-section (4)(a) of Section 306, which mandates the examination of the approver immediately after pardon, vitiates the entire proceedings. It was held that Sub-section (4)(a) is not a condition for tendering pardon but a procedural requirement. As the pardon was granted after the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, compliance with Sub-section (4)(a) was not necessary.3. Reliability of the approver's evidence:The Court considered the reliability of the approver's evidence, noting that the evidence must implicate the accused and be corroborated by independent material. The evidence of the approver in this case was found to be trustworthy and corroborated by other evidence, including medical reports and witness testimonies. However, due to the invalidity of the pardon, the approver's evidence was excluded from consideration.4. Sufficiency of evidence excluding the approver's testimony:Excluding the approver's testimony, the Court examined other evidence, including testimonies of PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, and PW-5, and recoveries of stolen articles. The evidence established the commission of the crime and the involvement of the accused. The recoveries of stolen properties from the accused and their identification by the victims were sufficient to hold the accused guilty of the crime.5. Appropriateness of the death sentence for accused Devendran:The Court evaluated whether the death sentence for accused Devendran was justified. Considering the absence of premeditation and the circumstances of the crime, the Court concluded that the case did not fall under the 'rarest of rare' category. The death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment. The convictions of the other accused for murder were set aside, but they were convicted u/s 411 IPC and sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment.Conclusion:The appeals were disposed of with the conviction of Devendran under Section 302 IPC upheld but the death sentence commuted to life imprisonment. The other accused were acquitted of murder charges but convicted u/s 411 IPC. The Court appreciated the efforts of the amicus curiae in the case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
