KONAJETI RAJABABU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner assails the order dated 12-6-2000 passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna at Vijayawada, in Crl. M. P. No. 286 of 2000 in S.C. No. 159 of 1999.

(2.) The revision petitioner is A.1 in the said case and has been facing trial for the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The first respondent herein laid the charge sheet against four accused before the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawda, for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged, inter alia, in the charge sheet that on 13-7-1997 at 22.30 hours when the deceased by name Naveenram along with Boena Sivarama-krishna alias Nani reached the house of the deceased on a scooter, A.1 to A.4 surrounded the deceased and the said Nani. A.1 after having enquired with the said Nani as to who among them was Naveenram and on being informed by Nani that the deceased was the said person, took out a knife from the Scooter and stabbed the deceased above the stomach, when A.2 all of a sudden caught hold of the deceased from behind, and A.3 and A.4 beat Nani (L.W. 4) with hands hereby caused the death of the deceased with common intention to kill him as he was teasing the daughter of A.1, and thereby did commit the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The case against A.1 to A.4 was duly committed to the Sessions Court by the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, and the same was made over to III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna at Vijayawada.

(3.) When the case was pending trial, A.3 in the case filed a petition under Section 307 read with 306 of Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code' for brevity) requesting the Court to tender pardon to him by promising to reveal and disclose the whole truth and give evidence on behalf of the prosecution in support of the charge framed against him and other accused in the crime. In that application Crl. M. P. No. 286 of 2000 notice was given to the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State and after having heard the Additional Public Prosecutor, the learned Judge allowed the petition by tendering a conditional pardon to him and A.3 was directed ultimately to be discharged from the array of the accused and further directed to be shown as first witness for the prosecution. A.1, the prime accused in the case, assails that order, as aforesaid.