Karnataka HC faults trial court over probation report in Renukaswamy murder pardon
Karnataka High Court sets aside trial court's move to seek a probation officer's report before granting pardon to an approver in the Renukaswamy murder case.
The High Court of Karnataka has faulted a trial court for calling for a report from the Probation Officer (PO) before deciding a pardon plea by Pradoosh, an accused in the Renukaswamy murder case who has turned approver. The court has directed the trial court to pass a fresh order on the pardon application without referring to the PO's report on Pradoosh's background and conduct.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna issued the direction while partly allowing a plea by actor Darshan, another accused in the case, who had challenged the legality of the trial court's decision to seek the probation report before considering the pardon application.
While remitting the matter, the High Court said the trial court must pass a fresh order within a week. It clarified that the pardon application need not be heard afresh, and that only a fresh order is required.
The court examined Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and noted that a PO's report can be sought only in three situations, all of which arise after conviction: when sentence is to be imposed, when a sentence is to be suspended, and when a convicted accused is to be released on probation. None of these stages has been reached in the present case, the court observed.
"Therefore, the trial court concerned has misdirected itself in law, ignoring the mandate of the provisions of the Act and has chosen to suo motu call for a report from the hands of the PO," Justice Nagaprasanna said, describing the move as wholly unnecessary and contrary to law.
The prosecution had argued that the PO's report could be disregarded because the trial court did not rely on it while granting pardon to Pradoosh. The High Court, however, held that the decision to call for the report was contrary to law even if it was not ultimately relied upon.
The High Court also made clear that the other accused, including Darshan, cannot challenge the trial court's pardon order on its merits. It said the limited right of other accused persons to challenge an order granting pardon under Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code is confined to questioning procedural aberrations, not the merits of the decision.