https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168336 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. en-us Fri, 19 Sep 1958 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Feb 2015 10:54:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168336 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 19 Sep 1958 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168336