STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. NINAMA AMRATBHAI NAGJIBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these Criminal Revision Applications are arising on same issues and based upon same set of facts and circumstances and therefore, they are decided and disposed of by this common order.

(2.) In all the applications, State has challenged the impugned order whereby Addl. Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha @ Idar has discharged the respondent - accused from the charges levelled against them pursuant to offence registered against them vide I-C.R.No.15 of 2008. The impugned order is common in all the cases wherein they are discharged from the alleged offences u/s.307 of the Indian Penal Code (' IPC ', for short) and Section 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act ('Act', for short). However, the FIR is disclosing commission of some other offences also and therefore, such impugned order does not confirm the acquittal of respondents from all such charges except for discharging them only from the offence u/s.307 of the IPC and the Act.

(3.) If we peruse the impugned order, it becomes clear that the trial Court has taken care of all facts and circumstances available before it at the time of framing charge and while allowing the application at Exh.13 in Sessions Case No.90 of 2010 while discharging the respondents from few charges as disclosed herein above. The trial Court has rightly considered that when the incident is involving 450 - 500 persons, with an allegation that they have attacked the police party to safeguard some accused, though there may be charges under other sections, in absence of serious injuries to any of the police personnel or any other person, there cannot be a charge u/s.307 of the IPC even if the mob was having deadly weapons like sword, spear, bow & arrow, axe, sticks etc. Thereby, the trial Court has rightly considered that holding weapons by such tribal group, may not result into commission of offence u/s.307 of the IPC for which there must be serious injuries to any other person, which may result into possibility of casualty and therefore, even if injuries are normal by such mob either to police personnel or to any public, then also, charges u/s.307 of the IPC , may not be warranted though there may be charges under different sections viz.143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 149, 151, 152, 523, 324, 332, 337, 341, 342, 354, 427, 435, 452, 504 and 506(2) of the IPC . Therefore, when chargesheet is not only u/s.4 of the Act, but charges and chargesheet is disclosing commission of offence under all sections, which are listed herein above and thereafter, when by impugned order, Sessions Court has discharged the respondents only for the charge u/s.307 of the IPC and under the provisions of the Act, but what is necessary to be verified is only to a limited extent that whether there is any sufficient evidence available on record and in chargesheet to confirm that either of the accused has committed any such offences for which they are discharged. The perusal of record confirms that there is no serious injury to any of the witness or any victim of the incident and there is no damage to any public property. If it is so, when respondents have not bothered to get themselves discharged from all the charges and when in their application, they have simply prayed to discharge them from the charges u/s.307 of the IPC , so also under the Act, the Sessions Court has rightly considered the application and averments of the respondent - accused to discharge them from such charges only, whereby respondents shall be now prosecuted and tried for the offences under other sections as listed herein above, which includes Sections 323 and 324 of the IPC so far as injuries to anyone is concerned and also for damaging property, if at all there is some evidence on record.