Karnataka HC nixes Vinay Kulkarni plea objecting to pardon granted to fellow accused

Bengaluru: The high court has dismissed the petitions filed challenging the grant of pardon to Basavaraj Shivappa Muttagi, who was accused number 1 in the Dharwad Zilla Panchayat member Yogishgoudar murder case and allowed him to appear as an approver. 

The petitions were filed by former minister-Congress MLA Vinay Kulkarni, Dinesh, Ashwath, Vikram Ballari, Sandeep Saudatti and Chandrashekhar Indi, who are all the accused in the case.

Yogesh Gowda, a BJP Zilla Panchayat member, was murdered on June 15, 2016, in Dharwad. The trial is underway against 21 accused persons.

On December 23, 2024, the special court allowed the application filed by Muttagi and granted pardon to him and to turn as approver.

The petitioners contended that the procedure under CrPC section 206 has not been followed in granting pardon as the reasons recorded in writing for granting pardon are unavailable. The procedure mandates that once pardon is granted, that pardon should be accepted by the person to whom pardon is granted. It is only then his evidence could be recorded, they argued.

It was further claimed that though the high court had reserved liberty to file a second application seeking pardon, there was no changed circumstance supporting the same.

On the other hand, the Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the CBI, argued that the Special Judge had granted pardon under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and not under Section 306 or Section 307 of the CrPC.

When the accused himself has moved for pardon and has tendered his evidence, it is deemed that he has accepted the pardon. No separate order accepting pardon is necessary to be passed, he submitted.

After perusing the material on record, Justice M Nagaprasanna said the special court has recorded that accused number 9 (Ashwath) had telephonically called upon his friends and other persons and had threatened that he would ensure that accused number 1 (Muttagi) would not appear before the court.

The court further said the cause of action continues, as the threat continues with accused number 1, along with his family members who are facing threats continuously.

“Moreover, on both the earlier occasions seeking pardon, there was no answer on merits. It was on technicalities that shrouded the orders that were passed - one by the concerned court rejecting the application for pardon and the other by this court finding fault with a recording of evidence under Section 164 of the CrPC. Therefore, for the first time, there has been a proceeding in accordance with the law. Hence, there is no merit in the submissions of the counsel for the petitioners, that there is no changed circumstance in real time, to file another application seeking pardon,” the court said.