MAHESH BHOJABHAI HANAT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenging the order dated 05.02.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.39 of 2021 by the learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhachau, Kutch, in relation to the First Information Report being CR. No. I-11993010200842 of 2020 registered with Rapar Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120B of the IPC and Sections 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act of 1989).

(2.) Heard Mr. Sunil Joshi, the learned advocate appearing for the appellant, Mrs. Krina Calla, the learned APP for the respondent No. 1 State and Mr. Darshil Kanthariya, the learned advocate appearing for the original informant.

(3.) It is the submission of learned advocate for the appellant that the accused is an innocent person and has not committed any offence as alleged in the complaint. Referring to the FIR and chargesheet case papers, it is submitted that even if all the allegations levelled against the appellant are taken at their face value, no case much less prima-facie under the provisions of Section 302 and 120B of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act; that the appellant is not named in the FIR and no any witness has made any allegation against present appellant for the alleged offence; that as per the facts of FIR and chargesheet case papers, the accused no. 1 Bharat Raval is alleged to have played the principal role of commission of offence; that during the course of investigation, the role attributed to present appellant appears to be that after commission of alleged crime, the accused no. 1 had conversation on mobile and the appellant was alleged to asked his friend Prakash Bhimji Bera accused no.3 to drop the main accused at farm house on his motorcycle and thereby facilitate the screaming of accused no. 1; that there are no allegation in the papers of chargesheet that there was meeting of mind between the accused and appellant for the alleged crime and that the appellant herein had in any way aided or abetted the accused no.1 in commission of alleged offence and therefore, the case of criminal conspiracy is not prima-facie made out, that there are no allegation that the appellant was present at the place and he had any sort of grudge or animosity with the deceased; that there is no allegation that prior to commission of crime, the appellant played any role and met the main accused.