cr wp 2520-10.doc RMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2520 OF 2010 Mahesh Balasaheb Thakoor ] Age : 24 Years, Occ : Driver, ] R/At, Sodu, Tal-Khed, Dist. Pune ] (At present lodged to Yerwada Central ] Prison) ] Petitioner Vs 1. The State of Maharashtra, ] (Represented through P.I. Yerwada ] Police Station, Pune. ] 2. Rajesh Pandurang Chaudhary, ] Age : 23 Years, Occ : Driver ] R/At. Golegaon, Tal. Khed, ] Dist. Pune. ] Respondents Mr. B.A. Aloor for the Petitioner Mr. V.B. Konde-Deshmukh, APP for the State CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 14th September, 2010 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 4th October, 2010 JUDGMENT: 1. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner-original accused no. 3 and learned APP for the State. 1 cr wp 2520-10.doc 2. The petitioner-accused no. 3 is seeking quashing of the order dated 19th July 2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pune, tendering pardon to original accused no. 2 under section 307 of Cr.P.C. 3. The petitioner is accused no. 3 in Sessions Case no. 106 of 2010 along with accused no. 2 and two others in a prosecution initiated by Yerwada Police Station under Sections 302, 201, 364 and 394 of IPC vide C.R. No. 534 of 2009. The accused have been charged for kidnapping and murder of a young married woman Naina. 4. After the case was committed to the Sessions Court, original accused no. 2 Rajesh Pandurang Chaudhary submitted application before the Sessions Court for permission to turn approver and for tender of pardon. The learned Sessions Judge called for say from the prosecution. The prosecution submitted detailed reply and stated that it does not have any objection to the said application being allowed. Learned Sessions Judge after hearing all parties including the learned counsel for accused nos. 1, 3 and 4, by order dated 19th July 2010 granted the said application. 5. The application was preferred by accused no. 2 on 22nd June 2010 stating therein that he is repenting for the act 2 cr wp 2520-10.doc done by him, hence, he is ready to give true disclosure of the matter and ready to co-operate with the prosecution. He further stated that he is ready to disclose each and every aspect of the incidents in the offence within his knowledge. In the said application, it was prayed that he be permitted to become an approver and tender of pardon may be granted to him. 6. Mr. Aloor, the learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the Court ought not to have allowed the application of accused no. 2 principally because the said accused is an accomplice to the crime and his application is motivated in his own interest and cannot be considered as reliable. He also contended that the Court allowed the application without knowing the facts which petitioner intended to disclose and, therefore, the order is vitiated. 7. It is not possible to accept the contention on behalf of the petitioner. Section 307 of Cr.P.C. confers a discretion on the Court to tender a pardon to an accused with a view to obtaining his evidence where the person is directly or indirectly concerned in, or privy to, any such offence. thus, the Court is empowered with the discretion of obtaining the evidence of such a person at the trial. Often such a person who applies for pardon is an accomplice to the crime 3 cr wp 2520-10.doc and his application cannot be rejected on that ground. 8 Mr. Aloor submitted that all the accused persons came to be arrested on 16th October 2009, however, for a period of almost eight months, accused no. 2 did not make any application before the Court. Suddenly, after a period of almost 8 months, accused no. 2 stated that he is repenting which raises doubt about repentance expressed by accused no. 2. He submitted that accused no. 2 had not given any statement to the police earlier nor had he shown any willingness to be tendered pardon when the proceedings were before the learned Magistrate. Learned advocate for the petitioner also submitted that accused no. 2 did not prefer the said application before the Magistrate and the fact that he preferred it eight months after arrest makes the application suspect. As far as this aspect is concerned, it is not known as to how the human mind functions. One person may repent on the same day, another person may repent on the next day and some other person may repent after a few months. Section 307 allows such an application to be made and allows grant of tender of pardon to the accused at any stage before the judgment, hence if the application was preferred even after eight months after arrest, that in no way affects the grant of tender of pardon. 4 cr wp 2520-10.doc 9. Thereafter, Mr. Aloor submitted that this belated step by accused no. 2 shows that it was a malafide act on the part of accused no. 2 to escape from punishment. In relation to the contention that the application was made by accused no. 2 at a belated stage which shows that it is activated by malafides, it would be necessary to make a reference to Section 307 of Cr.P.C. Section 307 of Cr.P.C. deals with the power of a Sessions Judge to direct tender of pardon. Section 307 states that at any time before the judgment is passed, the Court may with a view to obtaining the evidence of any person supposed to have been directly or indirectly concerned in, or privy to, any such offence, tender a pardon to such person. Section 307 of Cr.P.C. reads as under: "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." The object of the provision with respect to tender of pardon is to enable the Court to bring to book the culprits and to punish them because of their complicity in the crime. When a grave offence is alleged to have been committed by several persons, pardon can be tendered to an accused, who is 5 cr wp 2520-10.doc supposed to have been directly or indirectly concerned in or privy to the offence on the condition that he would make a full and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances within his knowledge relating to the offence whether as principal or abettor in commission thereof. Pardon is to be granted especially in cases, where it is otherwise impossible to establish the guilt of the accused from other evidence. Of course, the Court, in these circumstances, has to proceed with great caution and care. 10. Mr. Aloor, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that there is recovery of weapon and ornaments at the instance of the accused persons,hence, there is enough evidence for the prosecution to base a conviction and it is not necessary to make accused no. 2 an approver in the case. He has submitted that the list of witnesses contains more than 87 witnesses, this shows that there is sufficient material to successfully prosecute the accused. Thus, the evidence of approver-accused no. 2 would not be necessary in this case. 11. It is to be highlighted that in this case, there is no direct evidence to support the prosecution case. There is also no evidence of 'last seen' in the present case. 6 cr wp 2520-10.doc 12. The prosecution case briefly stated is that Naina Pujari was abducted by accused nos. 1, 3 and 4. Thereafter, they gang raped her. Accused no. 2 joined them and again all four including accused no. 2 raped Naina. Thereafter, accused nos. 1 and 3 went to ATM Centre along with ATM card of Naina Pujari to encash money on the motor cycle of accused no. 2. In the meantime, accused nos. 2 and 4 threatened Naina Pujari and took her in an Indica Car to Vadhu Phata. Accused nos. 1 and 3 met them there as was pre-decided. Thereafter, accused no. 2 took his motor cycle and left the spot. Sometime thereafter, accused nos. 1, 3 and 4 committed murder of Naina at a secluded place in Khed Taluka by strangulating her with her odhni and crushing her head and face by means of big stones. 13. Thus, from the above facts, it is seen that accused no. 2 is directly concerned with the offence of rape and is privy to the other offences. Moreover, his role is comparatively lesser than the other accused. As there is no eye-witness to any part of the incident or even any witness on 'last seen', hence, his evidence would help to establish the guilt of the other accused which on the basis of the material already gathered would not be easy. 14. Learned advocate for the petitioner placed reliance on 7 cr wp 2520-10.doc a decision of this Court in case of Al-Saleha Beig Vs State reported in 2008 CRI.L.J. 1500 wherein it was observed that the prosecution merely stating "No Objection" to tender of pardon would not be sufficient. However, on going through the said decision, I find nothing therein which would help the petitioner in support of his contention that the prosecution merely stating "no objection" for tendering pardon would not be sufficient because, in the present case, from the reply tendered by the prosecution as well as the order of the learned Sessions Judge, the prosecution has said more than "no objection". Reasons in detail have been given by the prosecution as to why the application preferred by accused no. 2 for tender of pardon should be accepted. So also detailed reasons have been given by the learned Sessions Judge for passing the impugned order. Thus, this decision would be of no help to the petitioner. 15. Thereafter, Mr. Aloor also relied on the following observations in the judgment in Al-Saleha: "Mere perusal of this provision show that the paramount consideration for tendering pardon to an accomplice is the satisfaction of a Court that he will make a full and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances within his knowledge relating to the offence so also the satisfaction of the prosecution that the conviction of the other accused is not easy without the approver's testimony." 8 cr wp 2520-10.doc Mr. Aloor submitted that in the present case, accused no. 2 cannot made a full and true disclosure of the 'whole' incident, hence, necessary ingredients for tendering pardon is absent. He submitted that accused no. 2 is not a witness to initial abduction of Naina or murder of Naina, hence, he cannot make a full and true disclosure of the whole of the incident. From the provisions of Section 307 of Cr.P.C., it is clear that even if a person is directly or indirectly concerned in, or privy to, any such offence, he can be tendered a pardon. In the present case, the accused no. 2 will make a full and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances as are within his knowledge. This Court held in Al-Saleha Beig (Supra) that the extent of the role of the accused seeking pardon cannot be considered while exercising powers under Section 307 Cr.P.C. Thus, just because the role of an accused is lesser than the other accused, it does not mean that he cannot be made an approver. So also, only because he can depose only about part of the incident, the application to make him approver cannot be rejected. 16. Thereafter, the learned advocate for the petitioner placed reliance on paras 13, 14 and 16 of a decision in the case of Konajeti Rajababu Vs State of AP & Anr reported in 2002 CRI.L.J. 2990. As far as para 16 of the said judgment is 9 cr wp 2520-10.doc concerned, it was argued in the said case that the prosecution has already gathered evidence of eye witnesses to the occurrence, therefore, there was no need or necessity to tender pardon to one of the accused. In the said case, it was held that the trial Judge did not exercise its discretion in a proper manner in as much as it was not necessary to grant pardon as three eye witnesses had already been examined by the prosecution. The present case is only based on circumstantial evidence, it is reiterated that there is no eye witness in the present case. There is also no witness on the aspect of last seen, hence, these observations would not apply to the facts of the present case. As far as para 14 of the said decision is concerned, it is observed therein that the power to tender pardon shall be exercised only when the prosecution joins in the request. It is further observed in the very said para that this does not,however, preclude the accused from directly applying to the Court. When the accused directly applies to the Court,the Court must first refer the request of the accused to the prosecuting agency and ask for a statement from the prosecution on the request of the accused. If the prosecution thinks that the tender of pardon will be in the interests of successful prosecution of the other offenders whose conviction is not easy without the approver's 10 cr wp 2520-10.doc testimony, it would indubitably agree to the tender of pardon. The Court should, therefore, embark upon such a procedure in the interests of justice. In the present case, the prosecution has joined in the request for pardon, moreover, the procedure mentioned in para 14 of Al-Saleha (Supra) has been followed by the trial Court and hence, this decision is of no help to the petitioner in the present case. As far as para 13 of the said decision is concerned, Mr. Aloor has placed reliance on sub-paras 2, 4, 5 and 7 therein which read as under: "13(2) The power of the Court is not circumscribed by any condition except the one, namely, that the action must be with a view to obtaining the evidence of any person who is supposed to have been directly or indirectly concerned in, or privy to, an offence. 13(4). The secrecy of the crime and "paucity of evidence", solely for the apprehension of the other offenders, recovery of the incriminating objects and production of the evidence "otherwise unobtainable might afford" reasonable grounds for exercising the power. 13(5). The disclosure of the person seeking pardon must be complete. 13(7). The reason for tendering pardon must be 11 cr wp 2520-10.doc recorded and also about the factum of accepting of pardon by the concerned." As regards the submission that no disclosure has been made by accused no. 2 in his application and the disclosure intended is also not a complete one, giving all details of all stages of the crime, from the very nature of the application, it is not possible for the Court to know the details of the disclosure which the accused intends to make before the Court decides to tender a pardon. The provision does not contemplate that the application should itself contain full disclosure. It contemplates that the Court shall tender a pardon conditional upon a disclosure being made. Obviously, such a pardon would not operate if the disclosure is not made. In the present case, especially as there is no eye witness to any part of the incident, the action of the learned Sessions Judge is with a view to obtain evidence of a person who is directly concerned with a major part of the offence and is privy to the remaining part of the offence. On examining the accused as a witness, evidence which would have been unobtainable can be brought on record. By the term complete disclosure, it means complete disclosure of facts as known to the accused seeking pardon. Moreover, the learned 12 cr wp 2520-10.doc Sessions Judge has given a reasoned order as to why the application of accused no. 2 is accepted. In the circumstances, the impugned order cannot be said to suffer from any illegality. 17. Lastly, reliance was placed by Mr. Aloor on para 8 of a decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of State of Gujarat Vs Ramasi Devasi Bhil @ Chakala reported in 1991 Cri.L.J. 2801. Para 8 of the said decision reads as under: "Analysing the provisions of Ss. 306 and 307 of Cr.P.C., the position that emerges is as follows: (i) approver may be any person; (ii) such a person should be supposed to have been directly or indirectly concerned in an offence to which the section applies; (iii) such a person should be supposed to be privy to an offence to which the section applies. Therefore, all that was required to be seen by the learned Additional Sessions Judge was as to whether the approver was supposed to have been directly or indirectly concerned with the offence or that he was supposed to have been privy to the offence. The emphasis is on the word "supposed". 'Supposed' does not mean that such a person should have actually participated in the crime. The dictionary meaning of the term "supposition" as per Black's Law Dictionary is as follows : " A conjecture based upon possibility or 13 cr wp 2520-10.doc probability that a thing could or may have occurred, without proof that it did occur" Dictionary meaning of the term "suppose" as per Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English is : "Let it be thought that; take it as a fact that," Thus the very basis of the Section is that a person who applies for pardon under the provisions of Ss. 306 and 307 of the Cr.P.C. can be assumed to be directly or indirectly concerned in the offence. Similarly, he may be assumed to be privy to an offence. The assumption does not mean that he is party to the offence. If he is not actual culprit, there does not arise any question of exculpating one's own self." On going through this decision, I find that in no way it helps the petitioner. 18. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that even if this application preferred by accused no. 2 for grant of tender of pardon is rejected, no prejudice will be caused to anyone as there is enough material with the prosecution to base the conviction. However, if the application for tender of pardon is allowed, accused no. 2 who is a person accused of a heinous crime of gang rape would go scot free. However, in my view, the only question which arises for my 14 cr wp 2520-10.doc consideration is whether or not the learned Judge while dealing with the application filed by accused no. 2, has followed the due procedure contemplated by Section 307 Cr.P.C. In the present case, I find that all the necessary ingredients are satisfied, hence, there is no merit in this submission. Moreover, in the present case, there is no direct evidence and the case without the evidence of the approver would be wholly dependent on circumstantial evidence. Thus, the evidence of the approver is vital in this case, as he is an eye-witness to a major part of the incident. 19. Lastly, Mr. Aloor submitted that the learned Sessions Judge could not have directed the learned Magistrate to record the statement under Section 164 but it ought to have been done by the learned Sessions Judge himself, I find no substance in this contention because normally, statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is always recorded by a Magistrate, hence, no error can be found with the direction of learned Sessions Judge that the Magistrate should record the statement of accused no. 2 under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. 20. Looking to the facts of this case, no error can be found with the order of the learned Sessions Judge dated 19th 15 cr wp 2520-10.doc July 2010, hence, the petition is dismissed. [SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] 16