MANOJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is by name Manoj Kumar, A-7 in S.C.No.408 of 2012 on the file of the VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad for Trial of Communal Offences. The said Sessions Case was outcome of the committal proceedings from the police final report that was the outcome of Cr.No.81 of 2011 of Shahinayathgunj Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 148, 302, 324, 109, 120-B, 149 and 147 of IPC.

(2.) The police filed charge sheet against A1 to A7 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302, 307, 109, 120-B, 468, 471, 474, 385 read with 149 of IPC and Section 25 (1-B)(b) of Arms Act and the learned Magistrate, by citing as many as 41 witnesses including L.Ws.34 to 41 police officials including the Investigating Officers and the persons who assisted them. L.W.30 recorded the dying declaration of L.W.1 II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, L.W.33-XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate recorded Section 164 statements of witnesses. L.Ws.29 to 31 are the Scientific Officers who gave the expert opinion and the receipt and other material objects collected. L.W.28 videographed scene of offence. L.W.27 belongs to Clues Team. L.W.25-Doctor stated deceased Kishan breathed last and treated injured Murali and Christopher. L.W.26 conducted Autopsy on the body of Kishan. L.Ws.16 another photographer of scene offence. LW.17 to 24 panch witnesses to the inquest, scene observation, disclosure and confessional statements of A1 to A6 and facts discovered in relation thereto. L.Ws.1 and 2 injured persons supra. L.W.3 is brother of L.W.1. L.Ws.4 and 5 are eye witnesses, neighbour and son of L.W.1 respectively. L.W.6 is mother of L.W.1. L.W.7 is wife of deceased. L.W.8 is wife of L.W.1. L.W.9 another eyewitness. L.W.11 is another eyewitness. L.Ws.10, 12, 13, 14 and 15 are circumstantial witnesses including in relation to the civil matter in dispute. The learned Magistrate taken cognizance and committed the case to the Court of Sessions, from which Sessions Division allotted the Sessions Case number in securing the presence of the accused.

(3.) After appearance in the Sessions Case from post cognizance stage supra, applications under Section 227 filed by A1 and A2 together in Crl.M.P.No.120 of 2018, A3 in Cr.M.P.No.111 of 2018, A5 in Crl.M.P.No.121 of 2018, A6 in Crl.M.P.No.122 of 2018 and A7 who is the petitioner herein in Crl.M.P.No.112 of 2018, it is but for A4, all others among A1 to A7 filed five petitions seeking discharge. Those petitions were ended in dismissal by the impugned common order of the learned Sessions Judge dated 31.12.2018. Leave about others, aggrieved if any or not, from the discharged dismissal applications, the petitioner-A7 filed the present revision impugning the contentions in the grounds of revision that the dismissal order of the learned Trial Sessions Judge, discharge petition of the petitioner A7 is erroneous and without consideration of there is no iota of material to connect him with the Cr.No.81 of 2011 for any of the offences and he is falsely implicated on suspicion of he and A6 are parties to the so-called alleged fabrication of document/receipt in relation to sale of property two years prior to the alleged incident of assault and attack covered by the present crime, the trial Court should have seen that trial along with A1 to A4 the petitioner A7 causes grave prejudice and even assuming for argument sake of so-called receipt is a fabricated one, sale cannot be attributed to the incident in the present crime and no nexus between the said receipt and alleged act of assault to rope the petitioner in the crime and none of the prosecution witnesses whispered any role of the petitioner in the alleged assault covered by the crime for the alleged offences that too when the petitioner-A7 not present at the scene of offence on the alleged day and in the event of so-called attack much less met A1 to A4 even prior to that with any proximity to connect him to the crime with other accused and the so-called disclosure statements of A2, A5 and A6 are hit by Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act and not at all admissible for the learned Magistrate to frame a charge but for to discharge particularly the petitioner and even from a reading of the charge sheet no offence made out against the petitioner and thereby the learned Sessions Judge erred in dismissing the discharge application without even appreciation of facts and the propositions placed reliance within the scope of law, hence to allow the revision by setting aside the dismissal order of the discharge petition by allowing the discharge application discharging the petitioner-A7 from the Sessions Case.