Case Note & Summary
The case arose out of the murder of Yogesh Goudar, a Zilla Panchayat member, on 15 June 2016, following which his wife filed a complaint. The police initially charge-sheeted six accused, and trial commenced in Sessions Case No.50 of 2017. After examining 61 witnesses, further investigation was entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) by the State Government on 6 September 2019. The CBI registered a fresh FIR and filed supplemental charge sheets, ultimately arraying 21 accused, including a former Minister as accused No.15. During the proceedings, accused No.1 filed an application under Section 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking pardon to become an approver. The Special Court directed recording of his statement under Section 164 CrPC and granted pardon on 30 October 2024. Co-accused challenged that order in Criminal Petition No.12176 of 2024. On 4 December 2024, the High Court quashed the order, holding that recording a statement under Section 164 CrPC prior to grant of pardon is illegal, and directed the trial to be concluded within two months, while granting liberty to accused No.1 to file a fresh application. Accused No.1 filed a fresh application on 6 December 2024; the Special Court allowed it on 23 December 2024, granting pardon. The approver was examined on 30 December 2024. The present petitions, filed by several co-accused under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution read with Section 482 CrPC, challenge the order dated 23 December 2024. The core legal issue was whether the fresh pardon order complied with the mandatory procedure under Section 306 CrPC, particularly in light of the prior High Court findings. The High Court had previously laid down that a second application is maintainable only on changed circumstances, that recording a Section 164 statement before pardon is illegal, and that co-accused have a limited right to challenge on procedural grounds. The judgment text remains incomplete; the final decision is not available.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Pardon to Accomplice - Second Application Maintainability - Section 306, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - A second application seeking pardon under Section 306 CrPC is maintainable only upon demonstrating changed circumstances; in the present case, the earlier order was set aside on procedural grounds, providing a valid basis for a fresh application (Paras 6-7).
B) Criminal Procedure - Pardon Procedure - Recording Statement Under Section 164 Before Pardon Illegal - Sections 306, 164, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Recording a statement under Section 164 CrPC prior to grant of pardon is illegal and cannot be adopted; such procedure vitiates the pardon order (Para 6).
C) Criminal Procedure - Pardon - Co-accused Right to Challenge - Section 306, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Co-accused have a limited right to question an order granting pardon only on grounds of procedural aberration and not on merits (Para 6).
D) Criminal Procedure - Pardon - Examination of Approver After Grant - Section 306, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Examination and cross-examination of an approver shall be conducted only after grant of pardon, not before (Para 6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order dated 23-12-2024 granting pardon to accused No.1 under Section 306 Cr.P.C. suffers from legal or procedural infirmities warranting its quashment
Law Points
- Second application for pardon under Section 306 CrPC is maintainable on changed circumstances
- Recording of statement under Section 164 CrPC prior to grant of pardon is illegal
- Procedure of examination and cross-examination will be only after grant of pardon
- Co-accused have limited right to question order granting pardon only on procedural grounds
Case Details
2025 LawText (KAR) (04) 20
WRIT PETITION No.383 OF 2025 (GM-RES) C/W CRIMINAL PETITION No.14321 OF 2024, CRIMINAL PETITION No.14362 OF 2024, WRIT PETITION No.751 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
C.V. Nagesh, Sunil Kumar S., Sandesh J. Chouta, Lakshmikanth G., Sunil Kumar C., Parameswarappa C., M.S. Shyam Sundar, Vandana P.L., S.V. Raju, P. Prasanna Kumar, Rahul Krishna Reddy, V.M. Sheelvant, Praveen Kumar N.K., R. Nagendra Naik
Vinay Rajashekharappa Kulkarni, Dinesh, Ashwath, Vikram Ballari, Sandeep Saudatti, Chandrashekar Indi @ Chandu Mama
Central Bureau of Investigation, Smt. Mallavva Goudar, Basavaraj Shivappa Muttagi
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petitions and criminal petitions under Section 482 CrPC read with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, challenging an order granting pardon under Section 306 CrPC to an accused to become an approver in a murder trial involving multiple accused including a former minister.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners (co-accused) sought quashing of the order dated 23-12-2024 passed by the Special Court granting pardon to accused No.1.
Filing Reason
The petitioners contended that the order granting pardon suffered from procedural irregularities and was passed in violation of the procedure mandated under Section 306 CrPC, as earlier set aside by the High Court.
Previous Decisions
The High Court had earlier on 04-12-2024 quashed a previous order granting pardon to the same accused on the ground that recording a statement under Section 164 CrPC prior to grant of pardon is illegal, and directed trial to be concluded within two months, while granting liberty to file a fresh application. The present challenge is to the fresh order.
Issues
Whether the fresh order dated 23-12-2024 granting pardon under Section 306 CrPC is legally valid?
Whether the procedure under Section 306 CrPC was correctly followed?
Ratio Decidendi
1. Second application under Section 306 CrPC is maintainable only on changed circumstances. 2. Recording statement under Section 164 CrPC before grant of pardon is illegal. 3. Co-accused have limited right to challenge pardon order only on procedural grounds. 4. Examination and cross-examination of approver shall be conducted after grant of pardon.
Judgment Excerpts
Recording of a statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., prior to grant of pardon, is illegal and such procedure cannot be adopted in any case, while granting pardon.
the co-accused do have a right to question the order granting pardon under Section 306 of the Cr.P.C., only insofar as it pertains to any procedural aberration and not the order granting pardon on its merit.
The concerned Court shall endeavour to conclude the trial within an outer limit of 2 months, if not earlier.
Procedural History
15-06-2016: Complaint registered for murder of Yogesh Goudar. 09-09-2016: Police filed charge sheet against 6 accused. 14-09-2017: Sessions Court framed charges. 2017-2019: Trial continued, 61 witnesses examined. 2017: Deceased's mother and brother sought CBI probe; writ petitions dismissed on 01-03-2019. 06-09-2019: State Government accorded sanction for CBI investigation. 24-09-2019: CBI registered fresh FIR. 19-11-2019: High Court dismissed accused No.1's challenge to entrustment order. CBI filed supplemental charge sheets, ultimately arraying 21 accused including accused No.15 (a former minister). Accused No.1 filed application under Section 306 CrPC for pardon. Special Court directed recording of statement under Section 164 CrPC and granted pardon on 30-10-2024. In Criminal Petition No.12176/2024, High Court on 04-12-2024 quashed the order, holding that recording Section 164 statement before pardon is illegal, and directed trial to conclude within 2 months, with liberty to apply afresh. Accused No.1 filed fresh application on 06-12-2024; Special Court allowed it on 23-12-2024, granted pardon. Approver examined on 30-12-2024. The present petitions were filed thereafter.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 143, 147, 148, 120B, 302, 201, 149
- Arms Act, 1959: 25 r/w 3, 5, 8, 29
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 306, 164, 319, 482
- Constitution of India: 226, 227
