MAHESHBHAI BABUBHAI (KODI) PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Learned APP Mr. N.J. Shah waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent - State. Present Criminal Revision Application preferred under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by the applicants against the order passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirzapur, in Sessions Case No.224 of 2014 below Exhibit 9 dated 2.6.2016, whereby the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the application of the applicants for discharge them as an accused from the charge-sheet filed by the Investigating Officer in connection complaint being I CR No.111 of 2013 registered with Bawla Police Station.

(2.) Facts of the prosecution case are brief as under:

(3.) Learned advocate Ms. Samta Patel appearing for the applicants submitted that the present applicants have not committed any alleged offences and therefore, they are required to be discharged from the charge-sheet. She further submitted that in the said complaint, the complainant - father of the deceased has not disclosed that at what point of time and how much amount was demanded and at what point of time, the accused persons have harassed the deceased physically and mentally. She further submitted that during the ten years of marriage life, there was no complaint of any cruelty, harassment and any other complaint regarding demanding dowry and since long time, the present applicants are residing separately from the deceased. She also submitted that on 13.8.2014, when the accident took place, the present applicant No.1 went to market to purchase grocery for his grocery shop and the applicant No.2 herein was at the grocery shop to attend the customer. She, therefore, submitted that from the entire incident, the role on the part of the present applicants is not reflected and therefore, discharge application of the applicant ought to have been considered by the learned trial Judge. She drew the attention to the provisions of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and stated that the provisions of the said Section pertains to abet in the commission of the suicide by the persons. But herein this case, there is no abetment on the part of the applicants and therefore, offence pertains to Section 306 is not applicable in this case. Even as per the provisions of Section 107 of Indian Penal Code, there is no instigation or conspiracy on the part of the applicants and therefore, as per the provisions of Section 107, it can be said that the prosecution has not established the case against the applicants. She also submitted that upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents produced on record along with charge-sheet, there is no sufficient ground for proceedings against the accused. She also submitted that as per the provisions of Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the word "Sufficient Ground" is used instead of ground, which shows that there should be a sufficient ground and not simply unreasonable ground. She also submitted that there must be a very strong suspicion to form a presumptive opinion regarding the existence of factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged. She also submitted that there may be proof of commission of any offence, since there is no categorical and specific evidence in the charge-sheet, which even prima facie show the involvement of the applicants in the commission of the offence. There is no reason to ask the applicants to face the trial for couple of years. She also submitted that though there is certain that any accused cannot be discharged if there is any prima facie evidence against him and it is also certain that thereby presence of minimum and prima facie evidence must to frame charge. She also submitted that the application for discharge has to be decided on the basis of material on record and not on the basis of material, which may come on record at a subsequent stage. In this regard, learned advocate for the applicants relied upon the decision rendered by this Court in Criminal Revision Application Nos.726 of 2008 and 744 of 2008, wherein the accused persons have been discharged from all the charges levelled against them. She further submitted that in the said decision, this Court has observed that at best it can be said that the evidence adduced by the prosecution gives rise to some suspicion, but that by itself is not sufficient to frame charge against the accused in absence of any legally admissible evidence having been brought on record. She therefore, submitted that here in present case, there is no evidence against the present applicants and therefore, they are required to be considered for discharge from the charges levelled against them.