BHAVESHBHAI MANUBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two application under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been filed for quashing and setting aside order dated 4-6-2010 passed below Exs.288 and 345 in Sessions Case No.44 of 2008 by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Anand, whereby the present applicants were impleaded as accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in trial.

(2.) SHORT facts are that a complaint was lodged before Khambholaj Police Station by the respondent No.2-Rahanaben, D/o Yusufbhai Yakubbhai Vohra on 5-3-2008 about riots that broke out after the Godhra incident. At the end of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused without disclosing names of applicants. However, subsequently, in pursuance of stay of proceedings of ten criminal trial including the present case looking to the sensitivity of Godhra riot case, investigation was entrusted to Special Investigation Team ('SIT' for short) constituted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. SIT started investigation and charge sheet was filed against 37 accused including 7 absconding accused and trial commenced against 37 accused. During the course of trial and after the evidences of witnesses were recorded, applications Exs.288 and 345 have been filed by the complainant in Sessions Case No.44 of 2008 on behalf of witnesses seeking to join 13 proposed accused as accused. Upon hearing the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Anand, partly allowed both the applications joining the applicants as accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved by the said order, present applications have been preferred.

(3.) IT is submitted by learned advocate, Mr.B.S.Patel, for the applicants that though names of the present applicants were not disclosed by the witnesses in their earlier statements, they disclosed their names in Court without attributing any specific role with ulterior motive. IT is further submitted that there are major contradictions in the evidence of witnesses who disclosed names of the present applicants before the trial court leading to a conclusion that there is no possibility of conviction and, therefore, the order passed by the trial court is bad in law and hence, requires to be quashed and set aside. Mr.Patel has also submitted that when the offence was registered, names of the present applicants were not disclosed before the Investigating Officer or before the SIT. However, after long lapse of more than 7-8 years, the witnesses have, for the first time, disclosed before the Court the names of present applicants with other accused with ulterior motive. IT is further submitted that there was no pressure or fear or threat for the witnesses to have disclosed these things before the SIT. However, they did not disclose their names after long lapse of time but for the first time disclosed before the court while recording the evidence and, therefore, their evidence qua the present applicants should not be believed but should be discarded at the threshold. The trial court has committed a grave error in not considering these aspects and allowing the applications.