Approver is an accomplice in a crime who is granted a pardon by the court on the condition that they make a full and true disclosure of all facts within their knowledge relating to the offence and testify as a prosecution witness against the other accused. Under Indian law, the procedure for tendering pardon to an accomplice and making them an approver is governed by Section 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 343 of the BNSS, 2023).
Legal definition
Section 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides:
Section 306(1): 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 Metropolitan Magistrate at any stage of the investigation or inquiry into, or the trial of, the offence, 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 relative to the offence and to every other person concerned, whether as principal or abettor, in the commission thereof.
The approver's testimony, as an accomplice, requires careful treatment. Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act (Section 138 BSA) provides that an accomplice is a competent witness and a conviction is not illegal merely because it is based on uncorroborated accomplice testimony. However, Section 114 Illustration (b) IEA (Section 119(b) BSA) creates a presumption that an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless corroborated in material particulars.
New law equivalent: Under the BNSS, 2023, Section 343 corresponds to Section 306 CrPC. The framework is substantially identical, with the same conditions for tendering pardon and the same consequences for non-compliance.
How courts have interpreted this term
Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1957 SC 637]
The Supreme Court laid down the authoritative approach to accomplice/approver evidence. The Court held that the evidence of an approver must satisfy a two-fold test: (1) the approver's testimony must be reliable in itself — the court must be satisfied that they are telling the truth; and (2) the approver's evidence must be corroborated in material particulars by independent evidence connecting the accused with the crime.
Ravinder Singh v. State of Haryana [(1975) 3 SCC 742]
The Supreme Court held that the corroboration required for an approver's testimony must be of two kinds — first, corroboration of the general story narrated by the approver, and second, corroboration connecting each of the co-accused with the crime. General corroboration alone is insufficient to convict a specific co-accused.
Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar [(1994) 1 SCC 236]
The Supreme Court held that an approver who does not comply with the conditions of the pardon — by failing to make a full and true disclosure or by giving false evidence — may themselves be tried for the original offence. The pardon stands forfeited if the conditions are breached.
Why this matters
The approver mechanism is one of the most important prosecutorial tools in cases involving criminal conspiracies, organised crime, and multi-accused cases. In such cases, direct evidence is often unavailable, and the prosecution depends on turning one accomplice against the others to establish the conspiracy and the role of each accused.
For practitioners, the evidentiary treatment of approver testimony is a critical area of criminal litigation. Defence counsel must focus on two aspects: first, demonstrating that the approver is unreliable (motivated by self-interest, contradicted by other evidence, or bearing animus against the accused); and second, showing that the corroboration relied upon by the prosecution is insufficient to connect the specific accused with the crime.
The consequence of non-compliance with the pardon conditions is severe — the approver may be tried for the original offence and may additionally face prosecution for perjury. However, the prosecution for the original offence requires the consent of the High Court. This safeguard prevents harassment of the approver for trivial or technical non-compliance.
Related terms
Related procedures:
Related offences:
Frequently asked questions
Is an approver's testimony sufficient for conviction without corroboration?
Legally, yes — Section 133 IEA (Section 138 BSA) provides that a conviction is not illegal merely because it rests on uncorroborated accomplice testimony. However, as a rule of prudence, courts uniformly require independent corroboration in material particulars before convicting on an approver's evidence.
What happens if the approver does not comply with the pardon conditions?
Under Section 308 CrPC (Section 345 BNSS), if the approver fails to make a full and true disclosure or gives false evidence, the pardon is forfeited and the approver may be tried for the original offence. Additionally, they may face prosecution for perjury under Section 193 IPC (Section 229 BNS), subject to High Court sanction.
Can pardon be tendered at any stage of the proceedings?
Yes. Under Section 306 CrPC (Section 343 BNSS), a Magistrate may tender pardon at any stage — during investigation, inquiry, or trial. The Court of Session may also tender pardon during trial under Section 307 CrPC (Section 344 BNSS).
This entry is part of the Veritect Indian Legal Glossary, a comprehensive reference of Indian legal terminology grounded in statutory text and judicial interpretation.
Last updated: 2026-03-27. Veritect provides this content for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.