This article has been written by Ms. Nehal Sharma, a student studying BBA LLB (Hons.) from MIT WPU Pune. The author is a 2nd year law student.

Introduction: Administering justice in all legal systems is a complex and nuanced task that requires careful consideration of individual circumstances, the welfare of society, and the pursuit of justice. In this context, certain section 307 of the Act, which gives the power to direct the granting of amnesty, plays an important role. This provision authorizes the executive to intervene in exceptional cases where the application of the law may lead to unjust results or where considerations of public interest and well-being require leniency and leniency. In this article, we explore the importance and impact of Section 307, delving into its role as an instrument of justice and mercy in the criminal justice system.

To get clarity on Section 307, it is important to know the gist of Section 306. Section 306 of the CrPC empowers the court to tender a pardon to an accomplice who agrees to make full and true disclosure of the offense committed and provides evidence against other accused individuals involved in the same criminal act. The purpose of offering a pardon to an accomplice is to obtain vital information and evidence that can help in the investigation and subsequent prosecution of the case.

The section states that the court may grant a pardon to the accomplice if it is satisfied that the person is willing to disclose all material facts and testify against the co-accused. However, the grant of pardon is subject to certain conditions and obligations imposed by the court. These conditions may include the requirement for the accomplice to make a complete disclosure of the offense, provide a truthful account of their involvement, and cooperate fully with the investigation and trial proceedings.

The provision of tendering a pardon to an accomplice under Section 306 is crucial for uncovering the truth in complex criminal cases. It incentivizes an accomplice to come forward and reveal crucial information that may not have been otherwise available to the investigating authorities. By offering the prospect of leniency or immunity from prosecution, the court encourages the accomplice to cooperate and provide vital evidence against the other accused individuals involved in the crime. This provision serves as a powerful tool in the criminal justice system to combat organized crime, corruption, and other serious offenses. It helps dismantle criminal networks by leveraging the knowledge and involvement of an accomplice, leading to the identification and prosecution of the main perpetrators.

Now according to Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973,

“307. Power to direct tender of pardon. 

At any time after commitment of a case but before judgment is passed, the Court to which the commitment is made may, with a view to obtaining at the trial the evidence of any person supposed to have been directly or indirectly concerned in, or privy to, any such offence, tender a pardon on the same condition to such person.”

Section 307 confers the power to direct the tender of a pardon to the executive authority. It recognizes that the executive branch may need to intervene in exceptional circumstances to rectify any miscarriage of justice or to prevent further violation of human rights. The provision allows for the exercise of mercy and leniency in cases where the application of the law may lead to unjust outcomes or where considerations of public welfare and public interest demand intervention. If we see the application of Section 307 in criminal justice, the exercise of executive clemency through the power to direct the tender of a pardon has been recognized as an essential part of the criminal justice system. It serves as a check against wrongful convictions and excessive punishment. The provision is also seen as a means to address systemic failures and ensure that justice prevails. 

Several case laws have highlighted the significance of Section 307 and its application in the criminal justice system. In Kehar Singh v. Union of India (1988), the Supreme Court of India dealt with the scope and validity of the executive’s power under Section 307. The court held that the power of pardon vested in the executive cannot be exercised arbitrarily or with any malafide intent. It must be guided by principles of justice, fairness, and public interest.

In Sangeet v. State of Haryana (2013), the court dealt with the power to grant pardons in cases involving custodial torture and human rights violations. The court held that the power to grant pardon should be exercised to rectify any miscarriage of justice and to prevent further violation of human rights. The provision was seen as a means to address systemic failures and ensure justice prevails.

In Arif Khan v. State of Uttarakhand (2018) dealt with the power to grant pardons in cases of drug offenses. The court emphasized that the executive should consider granting pardon to drug addicts who are willing to undergo rehabilitation and contribute positively to society. This judgment emphasized the need for a balanced approach in exercising the power to tender pardons.

In Epuru Sudhakar v. Govt. of A.P. (2006) reiterated that the power to grant pardon under Section 307 is an exclusive prerogative of the executive. The court held that the judiciary cannot substitute its opinion for the executive’s decision on the grant or rejection of a pardon. The executive’s decision, if taken after due consideration, must be respected and upheld.

In Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014) dealt with the constitutional validity of the death penalty and the exercise of the power to grant mercy. The court held that the executive should exercise its power under Section 307 in cases where the death penalty may result in arbitrary or excessive punishment. It emphasized the need for consistency, transparency, and objective criteria in the exercise.

In the Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 307, which provides the power to grant pardon, is of immense importance. It recognizes the need for executive power in exceptional cases to redress injustice, prevent violations of human rights, and uphold the principles of justice and general welfare. Actual jurisprudence and important court decisions clarified the scope and application of this provision and emphasized the importance of exercising rational and constitutional principles by the executive.

The clemency power under Section 307 is a necessary safeguard against wrongful convictions and excessive sentences. It acts as a safety valve to correct systemic failures, promote justice and prevent further human rights violations. However, it is important that the exercise of this power is not arbitrary or motivated by malicious intent. The enforceable decision must be based on justice, equity, and public interest.

Furthermore, the judiciary has recognized that the power to direct the tender of a pardon is an exclusive prerogative of the executive. While the courts can review the legality and constitutional validity of executive decisions, they cannot substitute their opinion for the executive’s judgement in granting or rejecting a pardon. This distinction ensures the separation of powers and upholds the independence of the judiciary while respecting the executive’s authority to exercise clemency.

In conclusion, Section 307 plays a pivotal role in the criminal justice system by granting the power to direct the tender of a pardon. It allows for the exercise of executive clemency to rectify injustices, prevent human rights violations, and ensure fairness and public welfare. Through real case laws and landmark judgements, the importance of a balanced and judicious exercise of this power has been emphasized. As society evolves, the responsible exercise of executive clemency will continue to play a crucial role in upholding justice and maintaining the integrity of the legal system.

CASE LAWS AND REFERENCES

Kehar Singh v. Union of India (1988)

Sangeet v. State of Haryana (2013)

Arif Khan v. State of Uttarakhand (2018)

Epuru Sudhakar v. Govt. of A.P. (2006)

 Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014)

https://www.ourlegalworld.com/shatrughan-chauhan-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-case-analysis/

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/131143281/

https://blog.ipleaders.in/tendering-pardon-accomplice/