SUJIT DINANAT SADAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri. Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri. Loney, learned A. P. P. for Respondent State.

(2.) THE applicant - Sujit Sadan who is original accused no.1 in criminal case - S. T. No. 254/1994 has preferred this revision application against the order dated-27-7-1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati rejecting his application for discharge. THE applicant alongwith one Sunil Athawale (original accused no.2) stands charged for offence punishable under section302 read with section34 of Indian Penal Code on the allegation that they in furtherance of their common intention committed murder of one Chandrabhan Punshi on the night intervening 28-8-93 and 29-8-93. As per the prosecution case deceased was assaulted by original accused no.2 - Sunil with knife, he was armed with. During the course of investigation the statement of one Sandip Lolusare was recorded. This witness Sandip was admittedly a common friend of the applicant and accused no.2 - Sunil. In fact this Sandip, in his statement recorded under section161 Cr. P. C. claimed that accused no.2 - Sunil had made extra judicial confession in which the name of the present applicant was implicated and it was on the basis of that statement of witness - Sandip that the present applicant came to be made as accused in the case in connection with the murder of victim. THErefore, the applicant filed application before the Additional Sessions Judge, vide exhibit 8 claiming discharge. THE learned Additional Sessions Judge did not find favour with the applicant and consequently his application for discharge stood rejected.

(3.) MR. Loney, submitted that as observed by the trial court in the order - knife and goggle of the applicant was found at the place of occurrence. In such a situation prima facie taking into consideration the confessional statement of co-accused coupled with the fact that the appellant was present at the time of occurrence with Sunil. The learned Sessions Judge was right in rejecting the application or the claim of the applicant for discharge.