Judgment :- Narayanan Nambiar, J. The dead body of P. C. Chandran, owner of Anil Jewellery, Kammathi Lafte, Kozhikode was found lying near'Swagathamadul by the side of National Highway-17. The prosecution alleged that the deceased was murdered by the accused during the night between 8.2.1990 & 9.2.1990. Six accused were charge-sheeted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, North, Calicut City under Section 143, 396, 302, 364, 201 read with section 149 I PC. On the basis of an application filed by the prosecution, the first accused was tendered pardon by the trial court and he was examined as P. W. 3 in the case. After full-fledged trial, recording the oral evidence of. P.Ws.1 to 49, marking Exts. P1 to P57 and M. Os.1 to 44 on the side of prosecution and examining D. W.1 and marking Exts. D1 on the side of the defence, the trial court found that the offences alleged against the accused stand proved and accused 2 to 6 were found guilty under Sections 143, 396, 302 and 364 read with section 149 IPC. They were acquitted under Section 201 IPC. The accused were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under section 396 IPC. No separate sentence was awarded under Sections 302 and 143 IPC. They were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years under Section 364 read with Section 149 IPC. 2. A resume of the prosecution case is shown hereunder: The first accused Shaji, who was examined as P. W. 3, is the driver of a tourist taxi KL-5/1489. The car is usually parked at Pathanad in Pathanamthitta district. On 6.2.1990, accused 2 and 3 booked the car for a trip to Kozhikode on the morning of the next day. On 7.2.1990, accused 1 and 2 started from Panthanad and went to Perunna temple at Changanacherry. The other accused also entered the car and all of them together proceeded to Kozhikode via Alappuzha. They reached Kozhikode on the same evening and made an attempt to get at Chandran, but it failed. Therefore, they went to Kerala Bhavan Lodge at Kozhikode and stayed there. On the next day at about 8.15 p. m. while deceased Chandran was returning to his house from his jewellery shop at Kammathi Lane, the fourth accused snatched away his bag containing cash and gold and the second accused pushed him into the car. All the accused drove away. On the next day at about 8.15 p. m. while deceased Chandran was returning to his house from his jewellery shop at Kammathi Lane, the fourth accused snatched away his bag containing cash and gold and the second accused pushed him into the car. All the accused drove away. When resistance was offered by deceased Chndran, he was strangulated and after depriving him of the bag containing cash and gold and removing valuable articles like watch and rings from him, the dead body was thrown out by the side of National Highway-17,6 kms. away from Kottakkal on the way to Thrissur. 3. The third accused, Murugan, is a goldsmith, who was an apprentice under the deceased. He, being a resident of Calicut for years, was acquainted with the jewellers in Kammathi Lane, Kozhikode and also the place around. 4. When the fourth accused snatched away the bag from Chandran, he called out for help. P. W.1, Anil Kumar, son of the deceased and P. W. 5, who was a helper in the Chandran's shop, were then in the house of the deceased. On hearing the alarm, they got out of the house, but could not find anybody on the road. They proceeded further and reached Patteri Junction and on enquiry, P. W. 10, Krishnaku.mar, told P. W. 1 that he saw a car going from the by lane entering the Koxhidode - Mavoor main road and proceeding towards Kozhikode side. He also reported to P. W.1 that he saw struggle going on inside the car. P. W.1 made enquiries with the neighbours, but could not get any useful information regarding the whereabouts of his father. He could find a pair of Chappal, which belonged to his father, by the side of the neighbouring house on the road side. P. W.1 informed the matter to the night patrol party who did nothing except advise P. W.1 to report the matter to the Medical College Police Station. At about 2.30 a. m. P. W.1 went to the Medical College Police Station and gave the first information statement in which he stated that he heard the alarm raised by his father and he also reported what he was told by P.W. 10 Krishnakumar, and maintained that he has recovered the chappals of his father from the by lane. 5. 5. The next morning, the reporter of Deepika' daily newspaper at Malappuram went to Kottakkal Police Station and gave a statement that he had found the dead body of a man lying on the road side, 6 Kms. away from Kotttakkal towards Thrissur side. On getting this information, the Sub Inspector of Police, Kottakkal Police Station proceeded to the spot, conducted inquest and got photographs of the dead body taken. He also removed the dead body to the mortuary of the Governmental Hospital, Manjeri. Information was conveyed to the Medical College Police Station and P. W.1 was brought to the mortuary, who identified the dead body of his father. The investigation revealed that the number of the ambassador car, which was driven by the first accused (P. W. 3) is KL-5/1489, though by mistake it was noted As KL/1469, by P. W. 10, Krishnakumar. The first accused was arrested and on the basis of the information conveyed by him, the other accused were also arrested. Investigation was completed and charge sheet was laid. 6. As the first accused turned to be an approver, pardon was tendered to him. He did not face the trial, but was arrayed as the main witness for the prosecution. Only accused 2 to 6 faced the trial. They pleaded innocence and denied their involvement in any manner in the alleged offence. 7. The fate of this case depends on the acceptability or otherwise of the evidence of P. W. 3, who, according to the prosecution, was an accomplice, but later turned to be an approver. We are aware that a conviction cannot be passed on the uncorroborated testimony of the accomplice. But, if the court is satisfied that there is corroboration on material particulars from other evidence, there is nothing wrong in basing a conviction relying on the evidence of the approver. Now, we will discuss the evidence of P. W. 3 and simultaneously see whether his evidence is corroborated by the evidence of other witnesses and documents. 8. it was on 7.2.1990 that all the accused started together and reached Kozhikode. The evidence reveals that though they made an attempt tot get at the deceased on 7.2.1990, they were unsuccessful and so they had to spent a night in Kozhikode. Unfortunately, they were successful on the next day. 8. it was on 7.2.1990 that all the accused started together and reached Kozhikode. The evidence reveals that though they made an attempt tot get at the deceased on 7.2.1990, they were unsuccessful and so they had to spent a night in Kozhikode. Unfortunately, they were successful on the next day. According to P.W.3 he was the driver of the tourist ambassador car, blue in colour, bearing registration No. KL-5/1489 which belongs to one Saramma Mathew. On 6.2.1990, he was approached by the second and third accused along with the fourth accused. Second accused was known to him previously. They booked the car to go over to Kozhikode on the next day, in connection with the marriage of the third accused Murugan. Accordingly, on 7.2.1990 at about 9.30 a., rn., the second accused boarded the car and asked P.W.3 to take the car to Perunna temple at Changanacherry as others were waiting there. They proceeded to Perunna from where accused 3 to 6 got into the car. They came to Kozhikode via Alappuzha. P. W.3 was not familiar with Kozhikode, but the third accused told him that he was at Kozhikode for the last 10 to 11 years working as a goldsmith and he knew the route. From Cherthala, they filled diesel in the car. After reaching Kozhikode at about 7 p.m., they went by the Mavoor road and reached Kainadi Motels situated on the road to Patteri junction. They took food from the Motel sitting in the lawn. After placing orders for the food, the fourth accused, Dhilip, went out and returned after a while saying that they have to finish the food soon and go in a hurry. Ail of them went to Patten junction. The car was taken through the branch road. Then an elderly man who passed by that way looked into the car. After some time, the third accused returned and said that he was unable to meet the man they had come to see and so they can meet him the next day. Then they proceeded to Kerala Bhavan lodge and after parking the car in the courtyard of the lodge, occupied two rooms, 206 and 207, registered in the name of the third accused Murukan. This was what had happened on 7.2.1990. 9. This part of the evidence of P. W. 3 gets corroboration from the evidence of other witnesses. Then they proceeded to Kerala Bhavan lodge and after parking the car in the courtyard of the lodge, occupied two rooms, 206 and 207, registered in the name of the third accused Murukan. This was what had happened on 7.2.1990. 9. This part of the evidence of P. W. 3 gets corroboration from the evidence of other witnesses. P.W.6 is the cashier of the petrol bunk at Cherthala from where 29 litres of diesel was filled in. the car driven by P.W.3. Ext.P2 is the original bill in which the car number and the volume of diesel purchased are shown. P. W.6 proved Ext.P2 which was taken from the possession of P. W.3. The carbon copy of the bill book is Ext. P9 and Ext.P9(a) is the carbon copy of the bill, Ext. P2. Ext. P9 was taken into custody by the investigating officer as per Ext. P10 mahazar. P. W.6 is an attestor to Ext. PIO.On reading of the evidence of P. W.3 along with that of P. W.6, it is clear that the evidence tendered by P. W.3 that they proceeded from Pathanad to Kozhikode on 7.2.1990 is true and acceptable. (Paras 10 to 33 omitted being application of evidence) 34. A question of law regarding the status of P.W.3 and recording his evidence was raised by counsel for the appellants. According to counsel, P.W.3, who was the first accused, should not have been examined as a witness and he cannot be treated as a person to whom pardon has been tendered by the Sessions Court. The basis of this argument is that no statement of this witness is recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by the Sessions Court. Counsel submits that it is incumbent on the part of the Sessions court to have recorded the statement of the first accused under Section 164 Cr. P.C. before he was examined as an approver. 35. Before dealing with this question, we will point out here what transpired before the Sessions Court in relation to the grant of pardon to the first accused and the circumstances under which he was examined as P. W.3. First accused, Shaji, has given a statement under Section, 164 Cr. P.C. before the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Court. The prosecution filed a petition under Section 306 Cr. First accused, Shaji, has given a statement under Section, 164 Cr. P.C. before the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Court. The prosecution filed a petition under Section 306 Cr. P. C. before the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Kozhtkode to tender pardon to the first accused to make him an accomplice, but learned Chief Judicial Magistrate did not pass any order there on. After the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions, the Special Prosecutor appointed in this case filed a petition before it under Section 307 Cr. P.C. to tender pardon to the first accused and pardon was granted on condition mentioned in the order in C. M. P. No. 57 of 1992 dated 13.1.1992. It was thus the first accused 'was made an approver in the case. 36. The procedure for tendering pardon to an accomplice is prescribed under Sections 306,307 and 308 Cr. P.C. Section 306 deals with the powers of the Chief Judicial Magistrate or Metropolitan Magistrate and the Magistrate of the First Class to tender pardon to such a person "on condition of his making a full and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances within his knowledge relative to the offence and to every other person concerned, whether as principal or abettor, in the commission thereof". This Section applies even to an offence triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions or by the Court of Special Judge. Sub-section (3) of Section 306 Cr. P.C. provides that every Magistrate who tenders pardon under sub-section (1) shall record his reasons for so doing. Every person accepting a tender of pardon made under subsection (1) of Section 306 shall be examined as a witness in the Court of the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence. If the trial is to be held by the court of Sessions, the Magistrate shall commit the case to that court. 37. With regard to the Court of Sessions, the power to grant pardon and the procedure for the same is prescribed under Section 307 Cr. P.C. which reads as follows: "307. If the trial is to be held by the court of Sessions, the Magistrate shall commit the case to that court. 37. With regard to the Court of Sessions, the power to grant pardon and the procedure for the same is prescribed under Section 307 Cr. P.C. which reads as follows: "307. 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 trail 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." The condition is not mentioned in Section 307 Cr. P.C., but mentioned only in Section 306 (1) of Cr. P.C. The only condition which is contained in the said Section is that "the person to whom pardon is granted should make a full and true disclosure of the circumstances within his knowledge relative to the offence and to every other person concerned, whether as principal or abettor, in the commission thereof". Recording a statement under Section 164 is not a'condition' for granting pardon. 38. The argument of counsel for the appellants is based on the provisions of Section 308 (2) Cr. P.C. which states that any person accepting the tender of pardon and recording by a Magistrate under Section 164 or by a Court under sub-section (4) of Section 306 may be given in evidence against him at such trial. The trial which is dealt with in this section is prosecuting the accused to whom conditional pardon is granted for wilfully concealing anything essential or for giving false evidence. This argument also is far-fetched as the wording in sub-section (2) of Section 308 Cr. P. C. is very clear which obliges the Magistrate aore to record a statement under Section 164 and such an obligation is not there for the Court of Sessions. The Code has made a distinction between the Magistrate and the Court of Sessions for obvious reasons. If the Code does not enjoin a duty on the Court of Sessions to examine the first accused under Section 164 Cr. P.C., the argument that as he was not examined under Section 164 Cr. P.C., he should not have been treated as an approver and ought not have been examined as a witness cannot be accepted. 39. If the Code does not enjoin a duty on the Court of Sessions to examine the first accused under Section 164 Cr. P.C., the argument that as he was not examined under Section 164 Cr. P.C., he should not have been treated as an approver and ought not have been examined as a witness cannot be accepted. 39. We gain support to the proposition stated above from the decision of the Orissa High Court in State v. Bigyan Mallik (1975 Crl. L. J. 1937). The Orissa High Court held that the phrase 'same condition' in Section 307 Cr. P. C. obviously makes a reference to Section 306 (1) under which the Magistrate may tender pardon to the person supposed to have been concerned in an offence on condition of his making a .full and true disclosure. The requirement of Section 306(4) (a) that the person accepting a tender of pardon has to be examined as a witness in the Court of the Magistrate and in the subsequent trial, if any, is not a condition subject to which pardon is granted. When pardon has been granted by the Sessions Judge under Section 307, it is not necessary to comply with the requirement of Section 306(4) in so far as it requires that the person to whom pardon has been tendered should be examined as a witness in the Court of the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence and also in the subsequent trial, if any. It also held that examination of a person to whom pardon is tendered is not a condition of the tender of pardon. Therefore, it cannot be held that when for the first time at the Sessions stage pardon is tendered, the committal becomes vitiated and must be taken afresh in order that the requirement of sub-section (4) (1 )(a) of Section 306 Cr. P.C. may be complied with. We are in perfect agreement with the decision of the Orissa High Court. So, it follows that the argument of counsel for the appellants has no legs to stand on and it is only to be rejected. We hold that there is no irregularity or illegality committed by the Court of Sessions in not examining the first accused before he was examined as P.W.3. We also note that the power of recording a statement under Section 164 Cr. We hold that there is no irregularity or illegality committed by the Court of Sessions in not examining the first accused before he was examined as P.W.3. We also note that the power of recording a statement under Section 164 Cr. P. C. is given to the Magistrate and not to a Court of Sessions. 40. Counsel for the appellants also brought to our notice a Division Bench decision of this court in State of Kerala v. Monu Surendrah (1990 (1) KLT 53). We are afraid that the said decision has no bearing on the facts of this case. What the Division Bench there was concerned was regarding the procedure for granting pardon by the Magistrate as empowered under Section 306 Cr. P. C. It is, in that context, the Division Bench said that the Magistrate should record a statement of the witness under Section 164 Cr. P.C. The power of the Sessions Court under Section 307 Cr. P. C. to grant pardon was never the subject matter of the decision. Even incidentally such a power was not considered by the Division Bench. So, it cannot be said that the decision referred to above is an authority for the proposition that even the Sessions Court should record a statement of the accused before pardon is granted and he is examined as a witness. 41. The trial court has considered the various circumstances which point out the guilt of the accused and come to the right conclusion regarding their involvement in the crime. The evidence of D.W.1 was also considered by the trial court and the same was read out to us. We find nothing in the evidence of D. W.1 to substantiate the defence case. In the result, the appeals fail. The conviction and sentence passed by the trial court are just and proper and are confirmed. We find no reason to interfere with the same. The Criminal Appeals are dismissed.