Mandar Case: Goa

PANJIM: The suspense about who would be made approver in the sensational Mandar case continues. While the Prosecution argued that Alsaleha Beig be turned approver, the lawyer for Shankar Tiwari insisted that his client be made the state approver in the Children's Court.

However, the Children's Court judge Nutan Sardessai has reserved the order for September 20.

Counsel for the state, public prosecutor Pratima Verekar informed the Court that on the basis of statement under section 164 CrPC made by the accused Beig during investigations and after considering other facts on record, the prosecution gave no objection to making Beig an approver, even as they objected to the application of the accused Shankar.

The PP informed the Court that they had objected to Shankar as he had played a major role in the offence, right from hatching up criminal conspiracy of getting the victim from Vasco to the place where he was killed, preparation for confinement, calling up father of victim and asking for ransom money, making preparation to collect his money, in killing victim, disposing off his dead body and also on other grounds.

However, counsel for Ryan Pinto, Prabhu and counsel for Rohan Dhunghat, Shashank Samanth, submitted that Shankar had played only a minor role. They alleged that Beig had played a major role in the kidnapping and murder of Mandar and law states that only an accused who has played a minor role has to be made an approver. They also alleged that the Chief Minister Pratapsigh Rane had visited Beig in the prison and the Prosecution is trying to protect Beig by turning him into an approver.

The PP brought to the notice of the Court that where prosecution considers that the evidence of accused accomplice is necessary, it should be exercised on behalf of prosecution agency and co-accused can't question the act of granting pardon by the Court to one of the accused, as it is an important matter of the Administration.

Further, relying on a Supreme Court judgment, the PP stated that it is ordinarily for the Prosecution to ask that a particular accused, out of several maybe tendered pardon and even when the accuse directly applies to the Judge, the request must be referred to the prosecuting agency.

PP added that when accuse applies for pardon, then other co-accused have no right to intervene or ask for hearing.