BHUP SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for revision against the order of Shri S.D. Arora, Additional Sessions Judge, Bissar, where by during trial he granted pardon to Tulsi Ram, one of the accused facing trial under sections 304/308/323/148/149 and other lesser offences.

(2.) On the homicidal death of one Kanshi Ram, six persons were arraigned as accused inclusive of Tulsi Ram. The occurrence took place on 19th July, 1984. Sometimes later, four accused persons inclusive of Tulsi Ram obtained bail from the Court of Session. Incidentally, Tulsi Ram accused happens to be a nephew of the deceased Kanshi Ram. As per the prosecution case, there are three eyewitnesses to the crime, two of whom are ladies namely Smt. Shyama and Smt. Lilo, who are stated to have received injuries during the occurrence. The third one is Rajinder. When the case was committed to the Court of Session and assigned to the Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar, the charge was framed against the accused persons inclusive of Tulsi Ram. The stage of recording the evidence had not yet arrived when Tulsi Ram while on bail applied to the trial Judge for grant of pardon under section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Judge entertained the application and sent him to custody requiring him to be produced on 17th April, 1985, after a span of a few days. On the said date when Tulsi Ram was produced in custody, his application was considered and granted vide order now sought to be revised at the instance of the other accused. Though the State of Haryana at the time when the application was being considered at the trial stage appeared to have joined in the request of Tulsi Ram in his being granted pardon on becoming an approver, the learned counsel for the State now appearing does not support the application for, according to him, the discretion exercised by the learned Judge is not sound in law. The only contestant to the petition, who has appeared on his own, is Tulsi Ram through his counsel.

(3.) The main ground urged by Mr. Mulkh Raj Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that in the presence of three eye-witnesses, the discretion exercised by the learned Judge to grant pardon to Tulsi Ram was unsound and contrary to the object for which the power to grant pardon has been conferred on the Court of Session under section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That section is in the following terms: -