RAJESHBHAI MULJIBHAI PARMAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code), the applicant who has been arraigned as an accused in connection with the first information report registered vide Bhachau Police Station I Crime Register No.82 of 2007 for the offences under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 seeks quashing of the complaint insofar as he is concerned. According to the applicant he is falsely implicated in the aforesaid case and is sought to be involved only on the basis of a statement of a co -accused.

(2.) MR . N.D. Nanavati learned Senior Advocate appearing with Mr. Mousam Yagnik learned Advocate for the applicant has submitted that there is no legally admissible evidence against the petitioner for the Court to proceed against the applicant. From the charge sheet papers, it is pointed out that only three witnesses have referred to the applicant in their statements. However, none of the statements in any manner connect him with the crime in question. It is submitted that when there is no legally admissible evidence against the applicant, the applicant should not be made to face the agony of undergoing the trial. It is accordingly urged that the complaint be quashed qua the applicant. In support of his submissions, the learned Senior Advocate has placed reliance upon two unreported decisions of this court. (i) Judgement and order dated 18.01.2002 in the case of Ranjitsinh Dolatsinh Waghela v. State of Gujarat rendered in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.7323 of 2001, and (ii) Judgement and order dated 10.10.2000 in the case of Vijaybhai Dhuralal Soni v. State of Gujarat rendered in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.5483 and 5596 of 2000, wherein the Court had quashed the complaints as except for the statement of the co -accused there was no material connecting the applicants therein with the offence alleged against them.

(3.) ON the other hand Mr. K.P. Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the application. It is submitted that the applicant -s name has been disclosed by a co -accused. That a perusal of the statement of the co -accused clearly shows the direct involvement of the applicant in the crime in question. It is submitted that in view of the provisions of section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the statement of the co -accused can be relied upon for the purpose of proving existence of the conspiracy and for proving that the applicant was part of the conspiracy. Reliance is placed upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Damu Gopal Shinde, AIR 2000 SC 1691, wherein the Court had held that the confessional statement of the co -accused, which was legally proved was admissible in evidence. Reliance was also placed upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Narain Poply v. Central Bureau of Investigation AIR 2003 SC 1691, for the proposition that direct evidence in proof of a conspiracy is seldom available: offence of conspiracy can be proved by either direct or circumstantial evidence. It is not always possible to give affirmative evidence about the date of the formation of the criminal conspiracy, about the persons who took part in the formation of the conspiracy, about the object, which the objectors set before themselves as the object of conspiracy and about the manner in which the object of conspiracy is to be carried out, all this is necessarily a matter of inference. For the offence of conspiracy some kind of physical manifestation of agreement is required to be established. The express agreement need not be proved. It is, accordingly ,submitted that in view of the statement of the co -accused implicating the applicant no case is made out for grant of any relief in favour of the applicant.