Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

GAUHATI HIGH COURT - PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI
MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN, J
DEBOLAL GORLOSA – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ASSAM – Respondent
Crl.Pet./1181/2018

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MR. A M BORA, SR. ADV.
For the Respondents: MR D SAIKIA, SPL. PP, ASSAM

The court ruled that pardon granted to a co-accused must adhere to statutory procedures outlined in Sections 306 and 307, highlighting that failure to comply with these requirements undermines the trial's integrity.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 306, 307, and 196 - Grant of pardon to co-accused - Orders granting pardon to the co-accused suffer from legal irregularities and lack of compliance with statutory requirements - The court must ensure conditions under Section 306 and 307 are strictly followed when granting pardon - Petitioner, an accused, challenges the legality of the orders (Paras 1, 9, 24, 44).

(B) The court emphasized that the grant of pardon is a judicial act requiring careful consideration of the accused's status and substantial compliance with procedural requirements, stressing the need for caution to avoid prejudice to co-accused (Paras 10, 11, 15, 24, 41).

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a co-accused, challenged the orders granting approver status to another accused in a serious criminal case, asserting procedural violations in the pardon process and lack of prosecution sanction for certain charges (Paras 1-10).

Findings of Court:
The High Court found that the trial court's actions were not in accordance with legal principles governing the granting of a pardon, leading to the orders being set aside (Paras 44).

Issues: The legality of granting pardon without following due procedures and the right of a co-accused to challenge such orders were the main issues addressed by the court (Paras 10, 24).

Ratio Decidendi: The court underscored the obligation to adhere to statutory requirements in granting pardon. It ruled that failure to do so could compromise the integrity of the trial, recognizing the co-accused's rights in such procedural matters (Paras 41, 44).

Result: The impugned orders dated 27.07.2018 and 25.09.2018 set aside, and directions issued for reassessment of the pardon according to law within stipulated time (Para 45).

Table of Content
1. introduction of case details. (Para 1)
2. hearing of counsel for parties. (Para 2 , 3)
3. details of the fir and related charges. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
4. court proceedings regarding the approver status. (Para 7)
5. petitioner's challenge to the court's orders. (Para 8 , 9)
6. response from the informant and co-accused. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
7. argument against the co-accused's right to challenge. (Para 13)
8. arguments focusing on legal grounds for pardon. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
9. citations from previous cases regarding approver status. (Para 18 , 19 , 20)
10. responses to procedural arguments. (Para 21 , 22)
11. court's analysis of the investigation and trial process. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 30 , 31)
12. contextual legal principles regarding the grant of pardon. (Para 32 , 33)
13. discussion on compliance with statutory requirements. (Para 34 , 35)
14. summary of irregularities in the court's previous orders. (Para 36 , 37)
15. reflection on judicial discretion in the grant of pardon. (Para 38 , 39 , 40)
16. conclusion setting aside previous orders. (Para 41 , 42 , 44)

ORDER

Date : 21-12-2020

The orders dated 27.07.2018 and 25.09.2018, passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Dima Hasao, Assam, in Sessions Case No. 18/2008, under Sections 396 IPC, read with Section 27 of the Arms Act , granting pardon to the accused/respondent No. 3, are challenged in this application filed under Section 482 CrPC, read with Section 401 CrPC, by the present petitioner, who is also an accused in the said case.

2. Heard Mr. A.M. Bora, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr D Saikia, learned Special Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 and Mr B D Das, learned senior counsel appearing for rest of the respondents.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner is that he is the Chief Elected Member of Dima Hasao Autonomous Council and democratically elected public servant.

4. One Bikash Thousen (respondent No. 2) lodged an FIR before Umrango PS, alleging, inter alia, that on 27.04.2007, at about 11.30 am, his vehicle AS-01-AA-3723 (TATA Sumo) was hired and accordingly they left Haflong for Lanka in the vehicle. One police personnel with arms and two Dimasa persons boarded in the vehicle at Haflong and told they will go to Lanka. On the way before reaching block bazaar, near one bus stop, one of the Dimasa person of vehicle told him to turn the vehicle towards left and go inside and after going inside a group of 7-8 boys wearing army dress with arms stopped the vehicle. He also stated that they talked with one of the Dimasa person of the vehicle and he shake hand and handed over a shoe box to extremist and the extremist took one bundle of one thousand rupees notes.

Then, extremist put the money inside the container, and also demanded the arms from the PSO, and the PSO was reluctant to hand over but the Dimasa person who hand over the container to extremist asked to hand over the arms and ammunition of the body guard. It was also mentioned that the persons who asked to hand over the arms ammunition of the PSO, told them not to fear and thereafter, the extremist took the arms ammunition from PSO and fired upon him resulting serious injuries to the person. Immediately, thereafter, extremist fled away towards down side and both Dimasa Person run towards up, i.e., main road. The extremist also took away the keys of his vehicle and also told him to flee away from the place and let the body-guard die. Hence the case.

5. The FIR was registered as USO PS Case No. 22/07, under Sections 120 (B)/120/121/121(A)/109/326/307/427/395 IPC, read with Section 27 of the Arms Act and was subsequently re-registered as Diyungmukh PS Case No. 7/2008, under Sections 120(B)/120/121/121(A)/109/326/307/427/395 IPC, read with Section 27 of the Arms Act and was investigated into by the investigating agency.

6. The investigating agency after the completion of the investigation filed the charge- sheets against (1) Sri David Kemprai @

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

GAUHATI HIGH COURT - PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATIMRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN, JDEBOLAL GORLOSA – AppellantVersusTHE STATE OF ASSAM – RespondentCrl.Pet./1181/2018

The court ruled that pardon granted to a co-accused must adhere to statutory procedures outlined in Sections 306 and 307, highlighting that failure to comply with these requirements undermines the trial's integrity.

Cases Referred (1)

GAUHATI HIGH COURT - PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI
MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN, J
DEBOLAL GORLOSA – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ASSAM – Respondent
Crl.Pet./1181/2018