Tender of Pardon to an Accomplice (ss.343–345 BNSS) — BNSS (Criminal Law II) Notes

Tender of Pardon to an Accomplice (ss.343–345 BNSS)

To crack a conspiracy the law sometimes turns one criminal against the rest — offering a member a pardon in exchange for the whole truth. This “approver” becomes a witness for the State; but if he lies or holds back, the pardon evaporates and he is tried after all.

Tender of pardon (s.343 [s.306 CrPC]). With a view to obtaining the evidence of a person directly or indirectly concerned in a grave offence, a CJM or a Magistrate of the first class (at the investigation/inquiry stage) may tender a pardon on condition of his making a full and true disclosure of the whole circumstances.
Pardon by the committal / trial court (s.344 [s.307 CrPC]). After commitment and before judgment, the court to which the case is committed (the Sessions Court) may tender the pardon.
The approver’s duty. He must be examined as a witness and make a full and true disclosure.
Forfeiture of pardon (s.345 [s.308 CrPC]). If the Public Prosecutor certifies that the approver has wilfully concealed anything or given false evidence, he forfeits the pardon and may be tried for the original offence (and for giving false evidence).

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — which court tenders pardon after commitment?

Facts. A case is committed to the Court of Session. The prosecution now wants to make one accused an approver.

Rule. Under s.344, once a case is committed, the court to which it is committed — the Sessions Court — may tender the pardon (before judgment).

Apply. The committing Magistrate has lost seisin; the Sessions Court is the proper court to tender pardon at this stage.

Conclusion. The Sessions Court tenders the pardon. The decoy is that the committing Magistrate still has the power.

Section 343(1) BNSS: “With a view to obtaining the evidence of any person supposed to have been directly or indirectly concerned in or privy to an offence…, the Chief Judicial Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class… may tender a pardon to such person on condition of his making a full and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances within his knowledge…”

In Simple Terms: The law can pardon a participant in a serious crime in return for the complete truth about it; if he lies, the pardon is cancelled.

flowchart TD
    ROOT["Tender of pardon to accomplice"]:::root
    ROOT --> A["Before commitment: CJM/JMFC s.343"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> B["After commitment: the committal court s.344"]:::leaf
    A --> C["Condition: FULL & TRUE disclosure"]:::leaf
    B --> C
    C --> D["Concealment/false evidence?<br/>Forfeiture s.345 - tried for original offence"]:::sidebox
    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#000,stroke-width:1px,color:#000;
    classDef leaf fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    classDef sidebox fill:#FDE7C9,stroke:#B45309,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

Case Laws

A.J. Peiris v. State of Madras (1954) — the approver must make a full and true disclosure; a pardon is conditional on it.
State of U.P. v. Kailash Nath Agarwal (1973) — the power to tender pardon after commitment lies with the court to which the case is committed.

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past KSLU questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All BNSS (Criminal Law II) topics