A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court in Bipin Behari Sarkar & Another v. The State of West Bengal meticulously examined the procedural legality of a joint trial following an unaccepted tender of pardon under Section 337 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The appellants faced conviction for the murder of Malchand Bhadani, primarily through circumstantial evidence. The Court emphasized that a mere tender of pardon is insufficient to invoke Section 339 CrPC; acceptance and subsequent testimony of the accomplice are mandatory. Since the second appellant, Bishnu Charan Saha, refused to accept the pardon and declined to testify as an approver, Section 339 CrPC remained inapplicable. The Court proceeded to analyze the circumstantial evidence, affirming the appellants’ convictions under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The presence of both appellants at the crime scene, blood-stained articles, unexplained injuries, and incriminating behavior established their involvement beyond reasonable doubt. The Court rejected the defense arguments and dismissed the appeals.

Keywords: Tender of pardon, Section 337 CrPC, Section 339 CrPC, circumstantial evidence, Indian Penal Code, Section 302, joint trial legality, Supreme Court of India, conviction, approver refusal.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title
Bipin Behari Sarkar & Another v. The State of West Bengal

ii) Case Number
Criminal Appeals Nos. 102 and 103 of 1958

iii) Judgement Date
September 19, 1958

iv) Court
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum
Justices JAFER IMAM, S. K. DAS, and J. L. KAPUR

vi) Author
Justice JAFER IMAM

vii) Citation
(1959) 1 SCR 1324

viii) Legal Provisions Involved

• Section 337 CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898)

• Section 339 CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898)

• Section 302 IPC (Indian Penal Code, 1860)

• Section 34 IPC (Indian Penal Code, 1860)

ix) Judgments overruled by the Case (if any)
None

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects
Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, Evidence Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The case revolves around the murder of Malchand Bhadani, whose prosperous cloth business made him a lucrative target. The prosecution accused Bipin Behari Sarkar, Bishnu Charan Saha, and Sanatan Das of jointly executing the murder to rob the shop. The trial hinged on the legality of tendering pardon to one accused and the consequential procedural implications under Section 337 and Section 339 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

On December 18, 1956, Malchand Bhadani managed his family-owned cloth shop at Mathabhanga, West Bengal, alone. His father and brother were away. The shop’s daily revenue ranged between ₹50,000 to ₹60,000. That evening, the appellants, along with Sanatan Das, visited the shop feigning to make purchases.

After selecting the cloth, they had cash memos prepared and signed. While preparing the third cash memo, Malchand was brutally attacked with a heavy sharp instrument. His neck was nearly severed. A neighbor’s call startled the perpetrators, leading them to flee, leaving the money and gold in the safe untouched. The police recovered a blood-stained weapon near the scene and arrested the suspects within 24 hours. Blood-stained clothes and incriminating injuries were discovered on the appellants.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether the joint trial of the appellants was vitiated due to the alleged violation of Section 339 CrPC following an unaccepted tender of pardon to Bishnu Charan Saha.

ii) Whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction under Section 302/34 IPC.

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that:

The defense contended that the tender of pardon offered to Bishnu Charan Saha under Section 337 CrPC rendered the subsequent joint trial illegal under the proviso to Section 339 CrPC. They argued that once a pardon is tendered, the law prohibits joint trial unless specific conditions under Section 339 are met. They emphasized that procedural safeguards were violated, thereby vitiating the entire trial.

Moreover, the appellants challenged the sufficiency and reliability of the circumstantial evidence. They asserted that no eyewitnesses existed and that the circumstantial evidence was inconclusive and riddled with gaps. They questioned the authenticity of the cash memos, the significance of injuries, and the forensic inadequacy regarding blood-stained articles.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Respondent submitted that:

The State contended that mere tender of pardon does not automatically engage Section 339 CrPC. Acceptance and examination of the approver were absent, keeping Section 339 inapplicable. The respondents argued that Bishnu Charan Saha unequivocally refused to accept the pardon and denied being an approver.

The prosecution defended the circumstantial evidence’s cogency, highlighting a coherent and unbroken chain. The appellants were seen entering and leaving the shop near the time of the murder, were last seen with the deceased, and possessed blood-stained clothing and suspicious injuries. These factors, they asserted, pointed unequivocally to their guilt.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898

• Section 337 CrPC — Tender of pardon to an accomplice conditioned upon full disclosure.

• Section 339 CrPC — Procedure if person accepting pardon fails to comply with conditions.

ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860

• Section 302 IPC — Punishment for murder.

• Section 34 IPC — Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

I) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The Supreme Court held that:

• Tender of pardon under Section 337 CrPC mandates acceptance and testimony before invoking Section 339 CrPC.

• Bishnu Charan Saha refused to accept the pardon and did not testify as approver.

• Thus, the trial was not vitiated for non-compliance with Section 339 CrPC.

The Court affirmed the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence:

• Appellants were last seen with the deceased.

• Injuries on both accused coincided with the murder weapon’s characteristics.

• Blood-stained clothing and tampering attempts (burn marks) demonstrated guilt.

• Cash memos bore the signature of Bishnu Charan Saha with human blood stains.

Collectively, these facts created a compelling chain of circumstances proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt under Section 302/34 IPC.

b. OBITER DICTA 

The Court observed that:

• A mere tender of pardon without its acceptance holds no legal consequence.

• Procedural lapses under Section 339 do not arise unless there exists an effective pardon.

c. GUIDELINES 

• Courts must ascertain acceptance of pardon and examination as witness before invoking Section 339 CrPC.

• Circumstantial evidence must establish an unbroken chain leading unequivocally to guilt.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case serves as a seminal exposition on procedural safeguards in criminal trials involving tender of pardon. It clarified the mandatory nature of acceptance for invoking Section 339 CrPC. The Court meticulously evaluated the circumstantial evidence, finding it sufficient and compelling. The judgment fortified jurisprudence on the interplay between procedural law and evidentiary evaluation, reinforcing safeguards against misuse of procedural technicalities to evade justice.

K)REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

[1] Bipin Behari Sarkar & Another v. The State of West Bengal, (1959) 1 SCR 1324

b. Important Statutes Referred

[2] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898: Sections 337 and 339
[3] Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 302 and 34