Renukaswamy Murder Case: Karnataka High Court Rejects Darshan's Plea To Be Heard In Co-Accused's Application To Turn Approver

The Karnataka High Court on Thursday (August 13) dismissed a petition filed by Kannada actor Darshan, Accused No. 2 in the Renukaswamy murder case, challenging the trial court's refusal to allow him to file objections to a co-accused's application to turn approver.

Justice M Nagaprasanna held that a co-accused has no right of audience at the stage when a court is considering an application by another accused seeking pardon and permission to turn approver under Section 307 CrPC.

“….You are nobody. An accused is a nobody to say another co-accused turning an approver and his application for the same should seek the other accused's approval, or else, the application is not maintainable," the court orally observed.

Darshan had approached the High Court against an order of the trial court rejecting his request to file objections to the application filed by Pradosh Rao, Accused No. 14, seeking permission to turn approver in the high-profile murder case.

The trial court had held that, at the stage of considering an approver application, the persons concerned are the accused seeking pardon, the prosecution and the court, and that the other co-accused have no right to participate.

Before the High Court, Senior Counsel Hasmath Pasha appearing for Darshan argued that since charges had been framed and the trial had commenced, all parties to the trial had a right of audience irrespective of the matter under consideration. He contended that a co-accused could not be shut out from proceedings concerning the grant of pardon to another accused.

It was also argued that Pradosh Rao's application was exculpatory rather than inculpatory, and therefore suffered from a procedural irregularity.

Rejecting the submission, the Court observed that the contention regarding the nature of the material contained in the application went to its merits and did not establish any procedural aberration.

“That is not a procedural irregularity, it is on merits. If your contention is that exculpatory material is found in the application seeking permission to be an approver, that doesn't indicate a procedural aberration”, the Court said.

Darshan further contended that principles of natural justice entitled a co-accused to be heard while an application under Section 307 CrPC was being considered. It was argued that since a co-accused could challenge an order granting pardon in revision, they should also have a right of audience at the stage when the application for pardon was considered.

The Court, however, rejected the contention, noting that the issue was already covered by its earlier decision in Vinay Kulkarni, authored by Justice Nagaprasanna himself, against which the Supreme Court had declined to interfere.

“…At the stage of considering a pardon, co-accused need not be heard. Give me a judgment... Natural justice cannot be stretched like an unruly horse to get in everywhere. You cannot beat around the bush”, the court noted by relying on its own judgment in Vinay Kulkarni case, which was approved by the Supreme Court.

"Once pardon is granted, you can raise all this. The right is yet to arrive. You are nobody... it's not a question of equity; it's only a question of procedural aberration. That stage has not come yet."

In its order, the Court noted that the issue was “completely covered” by the Vinay Kulkarni judgment, in which it was held that a co-accused has no right to be heard when a court is considering another accused's application to turn approver. The Supreme Court had subsequently dismissed the special leave petition challenging that judgment.

Accordingly, the Court upheld the trial court's refusal to permit Darshan to file objections or claim a right of audience at the stage of consideration of Pradosh Rao's application to turn approver, and dismissed his petition.

Case Title: Darshan v. State of Karnataka & Ors