HC sets aside death for bus driver who killed 9

While upholding his conviction,a division bench of Justices P V Hardas and P N Deshmukh remitted the case back to the sessions court in Pune to hear Mane before handing out the sentence to the 40-year-old,who is a father of four.

The court directed that Mane,who has been behind bars for over a year-and-a-half,be produced before the sessions court in Pune on October 15.

The sessions court has been asked to take a fresh decision on the quantum of punishment after giving Mane a hearing.

While the High Court’s decision may be a breather for Mane,the sessions court may hand out capital punishment again if it finds the case fit for it.

According to the prosecution,on the morning of January 25,2012,Mane hijacked an ST bus from Swargate depot and went on a rampage killing nine people,injuring 37 and damaging over 25 vehicles. The police and people managed to stop the bus near Neelayam theatre bridge after a 45-minute pursuit over a distance of 15 km.

On April 8,additional sessions judge V K Shevale had held Mane guilty under various sections of the IPC including murder,attempt to murder,theft of property,voluntarily causing grievous hurt and section 7 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act,1984. While terming Mane’s offence “rarest of rare”,the sessions court sentenced him to death.

In his appeal before the High Court,Mane’s lawyers Jaydeep and Dhananjay Mane argued he was not given a hearing on the quantum of sentence. “The (trial) judge was in such a hurry to send the accused to the gallows that he did not follow the mandatory provision under section 235 (2) of the CrPC. The learned judge did not hear the accused on the question of sentence,” the appeal stated.

The prosecution,however,argued that the Mane’s lawyers were heard on the quantum of sentence by the sessions court and urged the court not to remit the case back to the trial court.

The defence,however,contended that the legal flaw was “incurable.”

The defence had also contended that Mane was of “unsound mind” and had committed the alleged act in a “fit of insanity.” The court,however,did not accept the arguments and upheld Mane’s conviction.