Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Nagnath s/o Rajaram Ghuge, was the accused in Sessions Case No. 41/2010 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai, for offences under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, arising from a road accident that caused the death of three persons. The respondent no.3, Shivaji s/o Raghunath Nagargoje, was originally a co-accused but applied for tender of pardon, which was granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by an order dated 3-8-2013. The petitioner challenged this order by filing a Criminal Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, seeking quashing of the pardon order. The facts leading to the prosecution were that on 17-12-2009, respondent no.3 lodged a report alleging that a truck hit him and three others, causing three deaths. However, on 21-12-2009, he gave a supplementary statement claiming that the petitioner had actually killed the three persons by driving his jeep. The petitioner contended that the pardon order was passed without recording reasons and without considering his objections, violating Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The court analyzed the provisions of Section 307 CrPC, which empowers a Sessions Judge to tender pardon to an accomplice at any stage of the inquiry or trial, provided the Judge is satisfied that the accomplice will make a full and true disclosure of the whole circumstances within his knowledge. The court noted that the order granting pardon was a cryptic one-line order that did not record any reasons or indicate any satisfaction. The court also observed that the petitioner's objections were not considered. Relying on the principle that a pardon order must be a speaking order, the court held that the impugned order was illegal and unsustainable. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order dated 3-8-2013 granting pardon to respondent no.3, and directed the trial court to proceed with the trial in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Pardon to Accomplice - Section 307 CrPC - Validity of Order - The order granting pardon under Section 307 CrPC must be a speaking order recording reasons for the satisfaction that the accomplice will make full and true disclosure; failure to do so renders the order illegal. The court held that the Additional Sessions Judge's order dated 3-8-2013 granting pardon to respondent no.3 was unsustainable as it did not record any reasons and did not consider the objections raised by the petitioner-accused. (Paras 1-10) B) Criminal Procedure - Pardon to Accomplice - Section 307 CrPC - Opportunity of Hearing - The co-accused has a right to be heard before pardon is granted, as the pardon affects his trial. The court held that the petitioner's objections were not considered, and the order was passed without giving him a meaningful hearing, violating principles of natural justice. (Paras 6-10) C) Criminal Procedure - Pardon to Accomplice - Section 307 CrPC - Recording of Reasons - An order granting pardon must be a speaking order; absence of reasons indicates non-application of mind and makes the order liable to be quashed. The court held that the order was cryptic and did not disclose any satisfaction as required under Section 307 CrPC. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order granting pardon to an accomplice under Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, without recording reasons and without considering the objections of the co-accused, is valid and sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 3-8-2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai, granting pardon to respondent no.3 is quashed and set aside. The trial court is directed to proceed with the trial in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Pardon under Section 307 CrPC requires recording of reasons
- consideration of objections
- and satisfaction that the accomplice will make full disclosure
- order without reasons is illegal and liable to be set aside.
