NAGNATH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the accused in Sessions Case No. 41/2010, pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai. The respondent no.3 herein was also originally an accused in the said case. The respondent no.3, however, applied for tender of pardon to him, which was granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by an order dated 3 -8 -2013. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, granting pardon to the respondent no.3, and has therefore, approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition. The petitioner prays that the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai, granting pardon be quashed and set aside.

(2.) RULE was issued and considering the nature of challenge, was by consent, made returnable forthwith.

(3.) IT would be necessary to mention the facts leading to the prosecution of the petitioner and the respondent no.3, and the circumstances in which pardon came to be tendered to the respondent no. 3. The respondent no.3 - Shivaji, on 17 -12 -2009, lodged a report with the Parli Police Station, that, while he and three others, namely, Bhanudas, Manchak and Balu were walking on road on the previous night, at about 9.00 to 9.30 p.m., a truck came from Parli side and gave a dash to the respondent no.3 and the said three others who were with him. That, as it was dark, the respondent no.3 could not see the number of the truck. The three persons, who were with the respondent no.3, sustained serious injuries. The respondent no.3 sustained only a few minor injuries. As the respondent no.3 was under the influence of alcohol and was frightened, he slept in the adjoining field, and in the morning, went to a dispensary at Parli. The other three persons had died on the spot itself. On the basis of the report lodged by the respondent no.3, C.R. No. 202/2009 in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 279 of the IPC, and 304 -A of the IPC came to be registered. On 21 -12 -2009, the respondent no.3 Shivaji, again came to the Police Station and stated that actually, the incident leading to the death of the said three persons was different, and that, not three, but four - the fourth being the petitioner Nagnath - were with him at the material time. The version which the respondent no.3 advanced before the Police on 21 -12 -2009, was to the effect that the petitioner Nagnath had actually killed the said three persons by giving them a dash by his jeep. The other details given by the respondent no.3 in his supplementary statement recorded on 21 -12 -2009 are not material in the context of the present petition.