Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 580 (MP)

Manish Purohit v. State of M. P.

2013-05-02

M.K.Mudgal

body2013
ORDER Mudgal, J. 1. Revisionist/accused has filed this revision under section 397 read with section 401 of CrPC against the order dated 7.2.2013 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ganjbasoda, district Vidisha (Shri Ravindra Singh) in S.T. No.309/12 framing the charges under section 109 read with section 307/34 of IPC against the petitioner. 2. In short, the facts of the case are that on 15.5.2012 police Ganjbasoda received information from the informer that co-accused persons had gathered to commit the offence and when the police party reached on the spot of incident and surrounded the co-accused Jitendra Kushwah and Mahendra Sharma then they fired gun shot at the police party. On the basis of the alleged incident a Dehati Nalsi report under section 307/34 IPC and section 25/27 of Arms Act was registered, on which basis, Crime No.336/12 was registered in the police station. Co-accused Jitendra Kushwah and Mahendra Sharma were arrested. During investigation, the accused Jitu alias Jitendra disclosed to the police under section 27 of the Evidence Act to this effect that two country made pistol 315 bore and 4 cartridges, 2 pistol and 19 live cartridges were supplied to him by the accused Manish Purohit. Thereafter, the accused Manish Purohit was interrogated and his memorandum under section 27 was also prepared on 18.5.2012 but no recovery of pistol and cartridges has been made from the possession of the accused-Manish Purohit. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case there is no prima facie evidence against the accused Manish for framing the charge as stated earlier. He further submits that the petitioner’s name has not been mentioned in the FIR. He was not found at the place of occurrence when the alleged incident was committed by the co-accused. Only on the basis of memorandum 27 of the accused Jitu alias Jitendra, the petitioner-Manish Purohit has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned trial Court without considering the recorded evidence properly has framed the charges illegally against the petitioner who was entitled to be discharged in the case. Petitioner’s counsel requests to discharge the accused. 4. Learned Panel Lawyer opposing the contentions made on behalf of the petitioner has supported the impugned order and requests to reject the petition. 5. Arguments were heard. Perused the record. It gets clear that the name of the petitioner-Manish Purohit has not been mentioned in the FIR. Petitioner’s counsel requests to discharge the accused. 4. Learned Panel Lawyer opposing the contentions made on behalf of the petitioner has supported the impugned order and requests to reject the petition. 5. Arguments were heard. Perused the record. It gets clear that the name of the petitioner-Manish Purohit has not been mentioned in the FIR. As per prosecution story he was not present on the spot. He was made an accused in this case only on the basis of the information given by the accused Jitu alias Jitendra under section 27 of the Evidence Act. No recovery has been made from the petitioner on the basis of aforesaid memorandum. Hence, the information given by the accused Jitu alias Jitendra under section 27 of the memorandum dated 16.5.2012 is meaningless. On the basis of that statement, the petitioner could not have been made accused in this case. There is no legally admissible evidence against the accused-Manish Purohit. There were no incriminating circumstances found on the record to connect the accused with the charged offences under section 109 read with section 307/34 of IPC under which the petitioner has been charged vide impugned order. 6. Considering the above facts, the submissions made by the petitioner’s counsel deserves to be accepted as the charge framed against the petitioner/accused Manish are found baseless. 7. Consequently, the impugned order dated 7.2.2013 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ganjbasoda in Sessions Trial No.309/12 against the accused Manish is set aside and he is discharged from the aforesaid offences. His bail bond stands cancelled. Copy of the order be sent to the lower Court for necessary compliance.