RAMKRISHNA Vs. SECRETARY HOME DEPT VIDHANA SOUDHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The son of a victim of brutal murder, is crying for justice, and is knocking at the doors of this Court, challenging the State action, of granting pardon to the perpetuator of the said heinous crime who is roaming in the streets of his Village, and wants to know, "is it justice".The petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the Higher Police Chief Director and Karnataka Chief Examiner of the Jail in Order No. J2/CR/16-2006 dated 3.8.2006 as per Annexure-B1 and the order passed by the/Governor, Karnataka State and its Chief Secretary, Under Administrative Department (Jail and Cinema) Order No. J2/CR-16/2006 dated 3.8.2006 and Government Order No. HD 140 PRA 2006, Bangalore dated 14.8.2006 vide Annexure-B1 wherein at Sl. No. 89 the name of the third respondent-Manjunath is found.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that, he is the son of one Sri Honnegouda who was brutally murdered by the third respondent-accused No. 1 and other 9 accused on 11.5.1998 at Maradahalli. During trial, bail was rejected which order was confirmed by the Apex Court. After trial, the learned Sessions Judge, Mandya, in S.C. No. 4/1999 delivered a judgment holding that the first accused committed murder of Late Sri Honnegouda and therefore he was sentenced for life. The third respondent preferred an appeal. Suspension of sentence was not granted. In so far as acquittal of other accused, State preferred Criminal Appeal No. 359/2006 and the same is pending. The petitioner also preferred Crl. R. P. No. 1079/2006 against the acquittal of other accused which is also pending before this Court. However, the accused No. 1 was released, on the occasion of the celebration of "Independence Day 2006" and "Suvarna Karnataka". The mother of the petitioner was bed ridden, after shock of her husband's murder. She died on 9.1.2007. The Government has no courtesy at the victimized family. They have arbitrarily released the accused. The Government which had opposed the bail in the High Court and the Supreme Court has now released the accused holding that he is reformed. Therefore, the said action of the respondents is arbitrary, illegal and therefore he has sought for setting aside the same.

(3.) A perusal of the judgment rendered by the Sessions Judge at Mandya in S.C. 4/1999, discloses that the accused and eight others assaulted the deceased Honnegowda with a chopper, on his face, neck and hands, causing bleeding injuries and he was murdered. He was aged about 65 years. The Sessions Court recorded evidence of 14 witnesses on behalf of prosecution looked into 39 documents and 11 M.Os. Eight witnesses were examined on behalf of the defence and 83 documents were marked. 8 photographs were produced. It is on appreciation of the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence on record, the Sessions Court held that accused No. 1 committed the murder of Honnegouda by entering into the farm house and thereby he has committed offence punishable under Section 448 and 302 of IPC. Prosecution has failed to prove the charges levelled against accused-2 to 9 for offence under Section 143, 144, 148, 448, 301, 144 IPC. Therefore, accused No. 1 alone was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and also pay fine of Rs. 5,000-00 for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. He was also directed to undergo sentence of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1000-00 for offence punishable under Section 448 IPC. Accused-2 to 9 were acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, accused No. 1 preferred appeal before this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 806/06. He filed an application for suspension of sentence. This Court declined to grant interim relief and rejected the bail application. It is during the pendency of these proceedings, the impugned order at Annexure-B1 was passed granting the pardon. In view of the pardon granted to the third respondent, he has withdrawn his criminal appeal challenging the order of conviction. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the order passed by the Government according pardon.