JUDGMENT - Dr. PRATIBHA UPASANI, J.:---This criminal revision application is filed by the petitioner/original accused No. 4/Udaysingh Gautam Jagtap, being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 20th December, 1991, in Sessions Case No. 257 of 1991, passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, whereby application of accused No. 3 Chandrashekhar Vishnu Malji praying for tendering him pardon was allowed on the condition of his making a full and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances within his knowledge relating to the offence in question and to any other person concerned for the commission of the said offence and the application of the present petitioner/original accused No. 4 Udaysingh Gautam Jagtap, making identical prayer, i.e. to extend him pardon under section 307 and 308 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was rejected. 2. Few facts, which are required to be stated, are as follows : One Mrs. Chanchalabai Subhashchandra Surana, who is accused No. 1 in the Sessions trial, her son Mahavir (accused No. 2) and his two friends Chandrashekhar Vishnu Malji (accused No. 3) and Udaysingh Gautam Jagtap (accused No. 4 and the present petitioner), were all residents of Solapur. They were charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under sections 120B, 107, 364, 363, 364, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the prosecution was that, accused No. 2 to 4 as well as the deceased victim Sunil were College going students. One school going girl, by name Unati (sister of accused No. 2 Mahavir), had fallen in love with victim Sunil, who was her classmate. Sunil belonged to a different community than that of accused Nos. 1 and 2. It has been alleged that the family members of Unati and particularly accused Nos. 1 and 2, did not approve of the love-affair of Unati and victim Sunil and they wanted to put an end to this love-affair. As per the prosecution story, accused No. 2 Mahavir, with the help of his friends was trying hard to put an end to the said love affair. During last one year, prior to the incident, which took place on 22nd July, 1991, accused No. 2 Mahavir had, on many occasions, given threats to victim Sunil. It is alleged that all the accused persons hatched out a plan and conspired to do away Sunil with the object of maintaining prestige of the family of accused Nos. During last one year, prior to the incident, which took place on 22nd July, 1991, accused No. 2 Mahavir had, on many occasions, given threats to victim Sunil. It is alleged that all the accused persons hatched out a plan and conspired to do away Sunil with the object of maintaining prestige of the family of accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the Society. The prosecution story further is that, as per the said plan, on the fateful day i.e. on 22nd July, 1991, the victim Sunil was called out of the house allegedly by accused No. 4 Udaysingh Jagtap (present petitioner) and then he was forcibly taken in the car by accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 with the connivance of accused No. 1 i.e. the mother of Unati. Unati was forced to accompany them in the said car. This car was taken to various places, including Tuljapur, Osmanabad, Pangari etc. During the said journey, victim Sunil was given fist blows by accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4. He was also forced to write a letter addressed to his mother, purporting to inform his parents that he was leaving the house on his own accord to become a big person and that no efforts should be made to trace him. On 22nd July, 1991, the car was parked at some distance from village Thegarewadi. Unati was compelled to sit in the car, while victim Sunil was forcibly taken out of the car by accused No. 2 Mahavir, accused No. 3 Chandrashekhar Malji and accused No. 4 Udaysingh Gautam Jagtap (present petitioner). Sunil was dragged to a tunnel on Latur-Kurduwadi Railway track. He was given fist blows by all the accused persons. His wrist watch was removed by accused No. 4 Udaysingh Jagtap and Sunil was done to death by inflicting stab injuries on him and by setting him ablaze. Then all of them returned to car and threatened Unati not to disclose anything to anybody. In the meanwhile, as the prosecution story goes, Vidhyadhar, father of the victim Sunil, had lodged complaint at Faujdar Chawdi Police Station against these accused persons for kidnapping his son Sunil with an intention to commit his murder. Offence, therefore, came to be registered against these accused persons and after completing investigation, accused Nos. In the meanwhile, as the prosecution story goes, Vidhyadhar, father of the victim Sunil, had lodged complaint at Faujdar Chawdi Police Station against these accused persons for kidnapping his son Sunil with an intention to commit his murder. Offence, therefore, came to be registered against these accused persons and after completing investigation, accused Nos. 1 to 4 were charge-sheeted for offences punishable under sections 120-B, 107, 363, 364, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Their case was committed for trial to the Sessions Court, Solapur by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solapur vide his order dated 21st July, 1991. Before framing of charge, accused No. 4 Udaysingh/petitioner herein, and accused No. 3 Chandrashekhar Vishnu Malji made separate applications to the Additional Sessions Judge dated 20th November, 1991 and 22nd November, 1991 respectively, under section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and requested to tender them pardon on condition of making a full and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances within their knowledge relating to the witnesses and the persons concerned in the commission of the offence. The learned Public Prosecutor was called upon to give his say on these applications by referring the matter to him, to enable the Court to know whether these accused Nos. 3 and 4 were making full and true disclosure of the events in question. Similarly other co-accused, namely, accused Nos. 1 and 2 also were called upon to give their say. The application for tendering of pardon was made first by the present petitioner-Udaysingh, accused No. 4 which was dated 20th November, 1991. Before passing any order on this application, original accused No. 3 Chandrashekhar Malji also made similar application dated 22nd November, 1991 for tender of pardon, which appears to have been submitted on 27th November, 1991. Initially the prosecution supported both these applications and requested the Court to extend pardon to both the accused and to allow prosecution to examine them as witnesses. Thereafter, the prosecution, with the help of Investigating Agency, recorded statements of both these accused. These applications were, however, vehemently opposed by the remaining accused, namely, accused Nos. 1 and 2. 3. The learned 2nd Addl. Thereafter, the prosecution, with the help of Investigating Agency, recorded statements of both these accused. These applications were, however, vehemently opposed by the remaining accused, namely, accused Nos. 1 and 2. 3. The learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Solapur, vide his impugned Judgment and Order dated 20th December, 1991, rejected the application of the present petitioner accused No. 4 and allowed the application of Accused No. 3 Chandrashekhar Malji to tender pardon to him on condition of making full and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances within his knowledge relating to the offence in question and to every other person concerned in the commission of the said offence. 4. I have heard Mr. Gupte, appearing for the petitioner/accused No. 4 and Mr. Salvi, the learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. Mr. Rao, appearing for respondent No. 2/original accused No. 1 and Mr. Agarwal, appearing for respondent No. 3/original accused No. 2 are both absent. I have also gone through the proceedings and, in my opinion, the impugned order passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur is a correct one. 5. The learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, while discussing the principle and object behind the provisions with respect to tendering of pardon to accused persons, which are contained in sections 306, 307 and 308 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has properly applied the said principle to the facts of the present case at hand. 6. It is to be highlighted that in this case, there is no direct evidence to support the prosecution case, though it appears, even at this prima facie stage, that accused No. 2, 3 and 4 have played important role in this unfortunate episode which culminated into the gruesome murder of poor Sunil. It is also clear at this prima facie stage that all this was done with active connivance of accused No. 1, who was the mother of Unati. No doubt, Unati was very much there, but her evidence may not be able to throw light on the incident of murder itself, which allegedly was committed inside the tunnel, for example, the manner in which the murder was committed and out of accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4, who played what role. The reason is that though Unati was there, she was made to sit in the car itself and as per the prosecution story, accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4, who played what role. The reason is that though Unati was there, she was made to sit in the car itself and as per the prosecution story, accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 dragged Sunil out of the car and led him inside the tunnel. Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the only persons who can throw light as to what happened inside the tunnel as they appear to be the main perpetrators of the offence with respect to Sunil. 7. The object of the provision with respect to tender of pardon is to enable the Court to bring to book the culprits and to punish them because of their complicity in the crime. When a grave offence is alleged to have been committed by several persons, pardon can be tendered to an accused, who is supposed to have been directly or indirectly concerned in or privy to the offence on the condition that he would make a full and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances within his knowledge relating to the offence and relating to every other person concerned, whether as principal or abettor in commission thereof. Pardon is to be granted especially in cases, where it is otherwise impossible to establish the guilt of the accused from other evidence. Of course, the Court, in these circumstances, has to proceed with great caution and care. Granting of pardon is not discretion of the Police authorities. It is a judicial function. In granting pardon, the real culprit should not be left out in the hope of obtaining evidence against the other accused. To do so, would be an exercise of wrong discretion. Where two of the accomplices are almost similarly situated, as to their complicity, and are willing to be witnesses, selecting one of them as a witness is a difficult task. The person who has not been chosen by the Court to be the witness, is bound to complain, but that does not render the selection illegal or void. The only other alternative is, not to use either of them, which again cannot be countenanced. Thus, only because two accused persons had sought pardon, that cannot be the sole ground to reject the application of both of them. Whether pardon is to be granted to both of them or one of them depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Thus, only because two accused persons had sought pardon, that cannot be the sole ground to reject the application of both of them. Whether pardon is to be granted to both of them or one of them depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. In this context, reference can be conveniently made to the judgment of the Privy Council reported in A.I.R. 1938 Privy Council 266 (Bawa Faqir Singh v. Emperor)1, A.I.R. 1921 Patna 499 (Sheobhajan v. King Emperor)2, and A.I.R. 1968 Bombay 400 (Laxmandas v. The State)3. 8. In the present case at hand, it appears, at least prima facie, from the record before the Court that, it was the present petitioner-Udaysingh and Mahavir-accused No. 2, who were brains behind the entire episode. They were the ones, who were responsible mainly for the murder of victim Sunil. As per the prosecution story, the petitioner-Udaysingh is the one, who called Sunil from his house; he was the one, who took Sunil in the tunnel and stabbed him with Gupti, which he was holding, when he left the car. Wrist watch of the deceased Sunil was allegedly recovered at the instance of Udaysingh. All these pieces of evidence and other circumstantial evidence, prima facie, point accusing finger at the present petitioner-Udaysingh. His complicity in the crime appears to be of greater magnitude and he appears to have played a major and active role. Of course it does not mean that accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were in any way less involved in the ghastly murder of Sunil. Prima facie, complicity of all the accused is apparent. But out of original accused No. 3 Malji and original accused No. 4 Jagtap, magnitude of involvement of Jagtap, appears to be more. 9. Therefore, it appears that considering the above mentioned circumstances, if the application for tendering pardon made by the petitioner-Udaysingh is accepted, there is possibility that the main accused would be let off scot-free, while other persons would be convicted. This would be a bizarre situation. 10. The learned II Additional Sessions Judge has also highlighted the inconsistencies between the statement of the petitioner, which was recorded earlier before the Police, during the course of the investigation and the subsequent statement, which was given with a view to seek pardon. This would be a bizarre situation. 10. The learned II Additional Sessions Judge has also highlighted the inconsistencies between the statement of the petitioner, which was recorded earlier before the Police, during the course of the investigation and the subsequent statement, which was given with a view to seek pardon. It is observed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge that, while the first statement of the petitioner is inculpatory in nature, the subsequent statement, which is given to seek pardon, is of exculpatory nature. The learned II Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, has observed that this apparent inconsistency between two statements made by the petitioner has made him come to the conclusion that the petitioner would not be a person, who could be relied upon and who could make a full and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances within his knowledge relating to the offence and to the concerned persons. It is also highlighted by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge that the statement made by accused No. 3 Chandrashekhar Malji before the Police and the subsequent statement given in support of his application for approver, are quite consistent, which made him come to the conclusion that accused No. 3 Chandrashekhar Malji was a better person, who could be relied upon for tendering pardon and that he would be a witness, who would make true and full disclosure in respect of the incident in question. Considering these circumstances, the impugned order came to be passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, whereby he rejected the application made by the petitioner for granting him tender of pardon and allowed similar application made by accused No. 3 Chandrashekhar Malji. 11. Having gone through the judgment and considering all the evidence which is available and placed before this Court, in my opinion, it was in the fitness of things, to grant pardon to accused No. 3 only, in quest of truth and in the interest of justice. There was no error committed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge in passing the impugned order. Hence, the following order : Criminal Revision Application is rejected. The order of the II Additional Sessions Judge, dated 20th December, 1991 in Sessions Case No. 257 of 1991 is hereby confirmed. Rule discharged. Interim order dated 23-3-1992 is hereby vacated. There was no error committed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge in passing the impugned order. Hence, the following order : Criminal Revision Application is rejected. The order of the II Additional Sessions Judge, dated 20th December, 1991 in Sessions Case No. 257 of 1991 is hereby confirmed. Rule discharged. Interim order dated 23-3-1992 is hereby vacated. Since it is a very old matter, the learned II Additional Sessions Judge is directed to proceed in accordance with law and conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible and in any case before 20th October, 2000. Criminal revision application rejected. -----