MOHAN WASVANI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [for short "the Code"] has been filed for quashing the final report in regard to Crime No.207/09 of P.S. Madhav Nagar, Ujjain, filed against the applicant for the offence under Section 302, 201, 109 and 120-B of the IPC.

(2.) Brief facts of this case are that on 28.03.2009 deceased Nalin Sharma was brought to the hospital by his son Jayant Sharma and it was informed that he met with an accident by vehicle Tavera, therefore, Crime No.207/09 for the offence under Section 304-A of the IPC has been registered at P.S. Madhav Nagar, Ujjain against unknown driver. During investigation it was disclosed that the deceased Nalin was offered Rs.35,00,000/- (Rs. Thirty Five Lacs) for vacating the applicant's premises but he was not ready. Hence the applicant hatched conspiracy with other coaccused Rajkumar, Rajesh and Durga for murder of deceased. Consequently co-accused Durga intentionally ran over the vehicle on the deceased. Therefore, deceased has been died. This petition is filed on the ground that there is no material against the applicant to proceed against him. Hence, to continue such prosecution is an abuse of process of law, therefore, it be quashed.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has hatched a conspiracy for murder of deceased. For this purpose prosecution has placed reliance on the vague complaint of applicant's brother Dr. Rajesh Sharma which was made after 5 days of the incident. During merg inquiry none of the eye witnesses stated that the deceased has been intentionally dashed by the vehicle. The statement of witness Umesh Sharma, Jayant Sharma, Sudhir Tomar, Rakesh and Hemant are unnatural and recorded after considerable delay only to involve the applicant in the offence. The prosecution has also relied upon the extra judicial confession given by the applicant to witness Dr.D.S.Chouhan. Dr.D.S.Chouhan's statement was recorded after more than a month. It is highly unnatural and improbable, otherwise also extra judicial confession is a type of evidence. So far as SIM Card, call details and conversation on mobile phone is concerned, the mobile phone does not belong to the applicant, therefore, on the basis of such evidence prosecution is not able to connect the applicant with the alleged conspiracy for murder of the deceased.