Section 308 of CrPC : Section 308: Trial of person not complying with conditions of pardon.

Explanation using Example

Example 1:

Ravi was involved in a large-scale financial fraud case in Mumbai. The police arrested several individuals, including Ravi. During the investigation, Ravi agreed to become an approver (a witness for the prosecution) and accepted a tender of pardon under Section 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In exchange for his testimony against the main accused, Ravi was promised immunity from prosecution for his role in the fraud.

However, during the trial, the Public Prosecutor discovered that Ravi had deliberately concealed crucial information about the involvement of another key conspirator. The Public Prosecutor certified that Ravi had not complied with the conditions of the pardon by wilfully concealing essential information. Consequently, Ravi was put on trial for the original offence of financial fraud and for giving false evidence.

Before the trial commenced, the Court asked Ravi if he pleaded that he had complied with the conditions of the pardon. Ravi claimed that he had complied. The prosecution then had the burden to prove that Ravi had not complied with the conditions. After examining the evidence, the Court found that Ravi had indeed concealed important information. As a result, Ravi was convicted for the original offence and for giving false evidence.

Example 2:

In a high-profile murder case in Delhi, Priya was one of the accused. During the investigation, Priya agreed to testify against the main accused in exchange for a pardon under Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. She provided a detailed statement to the Magistrate under Section 164, implicating the main accused in the murder.

Later, during the trial, it was revealed that Priya had given false evidence by fabricating parts of her testimony to protect another accomplice. The Public Prosecutor certified that Priya had not complied with the conditions of the pardon. Priya was then put on trial for the murder and for giving false evidence.

Before the trial began, the Court asked Priya if she pleaded that she had complied with the conditions of the pardon. Priya asserted that she had complied. The prosecution was required to prove that Priya had not complied with the conditions. After reviewing the evidence, the Court determined that Priya had given false evidence. Consequently, Priya was convicted for the murder and for giving false evidence, as the High Court had sanctioned her trial for the latter offence.