Approvers can be tried for suppressing facts, says Supreme Court

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday held that an approver can be tried for the offence for which he was granted pardon, if he wilfully suppresses material facts and gives false evidence.

"The procedure prescribes that if the approver is wilfully concealing anything essential or is giving false evidence or had not complied with the conditions on which the tender of pardon was made, the approver can be tried for the offence in respect of which he had been given pardon," a Bench of Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justice G P Mathur said.

The court said this while confirming the death sentence of two sisters -- Renuka Bai and Seema Gavit -- of Maharashtra for murdering minors whom they kidnapped and used for theft.

Kiran Shinde, husband of Renuka Bai, had turned approver but had suppressed some material facts relating to the offence.

Though his evidence was corroborated by other evidence, the Bench said the High Court was justified in giving observations against Shinde.

Maintaining that the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) prescribes a process for prosecuting an approver who had given false evidence or wilfully suppressed facts, the Bench said when the court suspected the evidence of the approver, the pardon given to him could be withdrawn and he could be tried along with other accused.

The court said the approver could only be tried with the sanction of the High Court.

Observing that the approver in the case himself had admitted that he had bribed the police many times and saved the accused from clutches of law, the Bench said, "Despite all these revelations, the public prosecutor had not taken any step to proceed against the approver.

"We feel, under such circumstances the court itself has inherent powers to proceed against the approver in case he is willfully supressing material facts or is giving false evidence".