1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.579 OF 2011 Makrand Suresh Jadhav and others Applicants versus The State of Maharashtra Respondent Ms.R.M.Dere for applicants. Mr.A.S.Shitole, APP for State. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATE : 21st December 2011 PC : 1. The applicants who are the original accused nos.2 and 3 respectively in Sessions Case No.106 of 2009 challenges the order dated 21st November 2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karad below Exhibit-40. By the said order, the application of accused no. 1 under sections 306 and 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, for tender of pardon is granted. 2. Learned advocate for the applicants relying on the provisions of Sections 306 and 307 of the Code, Illustration-B of Section 114 of the Evidence Act along with judgment of Apex Court reported in the case of Rampal Pithwa Rahidas and others Vs. State of Maharashtra (1994 Supp(2)-SCC-73) and judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in case of Al-Saleha Beig Vs. State reported in (2008-Cril.L.J.-1500), submit that the accused no.1's application could not have been allowed. She further submitted that the accused no.1 is the main culprit and played active role in murdering the deceased. She also states that there is no satisfactory evidence except statement of accused no.1 under section 164 2 of the Code. She lastly submits that it is the discretion of the learned Judge to grant pardon and the prosecution must give reasons and must join with the request for pardon made by the accused concerned. 3. I do not find any merit in the submissions canvassed by learned advocate for the applicant. I have gone through the statement under section 164 of the Code of accused no.1. The statement prima facie makes it clear that the applicants along with accused no.1 committed murder of the deceased. The statement shows that the applicant no.1 Makarand Jadhav played an active role in the offence. In any case, that may not be relevant for the purposes of grant of pardon as the same can be granted to the Offender or Abetor in terms of provisions of Section 306 of the Code. There is no dispute about the proposition as laid down by the Apex Court in case of Rampal Pithwa Rahidas and others Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra). The Apex Court observed that in view of the provisions of Section 114 and especially Illustration-B thereof, without corroboration, the evidence of an accomplice cannot be attributed. The learned counsel in this regard submit that there is no evidence except statement of accused no.1 recorded under section 164 of the Code. However, that is a matter of appreciation of evidence at the stage of trial. The impugned order shows that the prosecution has joined with the request made by the accused no.1. The reasons as to why the prosecution joined with the request, are also mentioned in paragraph 2 of the impugned order. In the circumstances, the conditions stipulated for grant of pardon in the judgment of Al-Saleha Beig (supra) are complied with. If according to the applicants there is no evidence apart from the statement under section 164 of the Code, then there is no question of prejudice being caused to them by grant of pardon to accused no.1. The learned Judge has exercised his discretion and the same is exercised judiciously. 4. Taking over all circumstances of the case into consideration, this is not the case where I should interfere in my jurisdiction under section 397 3 of the Code. The revision application is accordingly dismissed. However, it is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are prima facie observations made for the purposes of disposal of this revision and the learned Trial Judge shall decide the case independently and without being influenced by this order. (RANJIT MORE, J.)