24.apl.596.22.jud

1/8

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.

596

OF 2022

Applicants

:

Madhuri w/o Badrinarayan Gote,

Aged 32 Yrs., Occ. Household Work,

R/o Amani tq. Malegaon, Dist. Washim,

At present Central Jail, Washim,

Tq. Dist. Washim,

– Versus –

Non-Applicant

s

:

1. State of Maharashtra,

Through P.S.O. Police Station,

Washim City, Tq. & Dist. Washim.

2. Sandip Motiram Jadhao,

Aged about 32 years, Occupation – Agriculturist,

R/o Wasari, Tah. Malegaon, District Washim,

At Present – Madhav Nagar, Lakhada,

Tah. and Dist. Washim.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Mr. Anil Mardikar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ved Deshpande,

Advocate for the Applicant.

Mrs. M.H. Deshmukh, A.P.P. for Non-Applicant No.1/State.

Mr. S.V. Sirpurkar, Advocate for Non-Applicant No.2.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

CORAM

:

VINAY JOSHI, J

.

RESERVED ON

:

23

^rd AUGUST, 2022.

PRONOUNCED ON

:

26

^th AUGUST, 2022.

J U D G M E N T :-

Heard finally by consent of both sides.

02]

Admit.

24.apl.596.22.jud

2/8

03]

The applicant, who is accused No.2 of Sessions Case No.34/2020,

has impugned herein common order dated 17/02/2020 passed on Exh.21 and

Exh.28, by which the trial Court declined to grant tender of pardon.

04]

The facts in brief are that, at the instance of report lodged by

informant-Sandip, crime was registered vide Crime No.23/2020 with Police

Station Washim (City) for the offence punishable under Section 302, 364A,

363, 201 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The informant’s niece, aged 15

years, went missing on 19/01/2020. During investigation, it was transpired

that applicant-Madhuri (Accused No.2) had grudge against the father of minor

girl (deceased) for which she hatched conspiracy with her husband

Badrinarayan (Accused No.1) to eliminate the minor. In execution of

designed plan, the minor was kidnapped, taken to secluded place,

administered intoxicant and was eliminated by way of strangulation. Later

on, both accused have burnt dead body, destroyed the remains and screened

the offence. The investigation was carried out in which several articles have

been seized at the instance of accused. The place of occurrence as well as the

place where body was burnt, was disclosed by the accused. Circumstantial

evidence was collected pointing towards the guilt of both. On completion of

investigation, charge-sheet has been filed. The learned Magistrate has

committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial.

24.apl.596.22.jud

3/8

05]

At this juncture, applicant-Madhuri (Accused No.2) has applied

[Exh.21] for grant of tender of pardon. It is her contention that she had

repentance about her deeds. She is ready to make true and complete

disclosure about the whole of the circumstances, which are within her

knowledge and thus claimed grant of tender of pardon. The learned

Prosecutor did not object the said application, however, filed independent

application [Exh.28] making similar request. It is the contention of the State

that there is no eye witness to the occurrence. The applicant-Madhuri had

direct knowledge being participant, she had agreed to make true disclosure

and, therefore, State also urged for grant of tender of pardon.

06]

The trial Court has considered both the applications. It is observed

that applicant-Madhuri had played important role in the episode and she is

the real culprit. There is no secrecy in the crime. Sufficient circumstantial

evidence is available against both accused and, therefore, declined to grant

tender of pardon. The said order is impugned by the applicant (Accused

No.2) and supported by the prosecution.

07]

The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant has strongly

assailed the impugned order contending that the trial Court has committed

serious error in self-undertaking exercise of prejudging th