Point of law: accusation leveled against the accused includes Section 114 but also includes Section 120B of IPC. When a specific allegation is there that it was at the instigation of the present petitioner the alleged commission of the crime has taken place and when there are evidences in that regard, at this stage without even subjecting those documents for trial it cannot be held that there is no material for subjecting the present petitioner for tne trial for the alleged offences including the one under Section 120B of IPC.

ORDER :

1. The present petitioner is accused No.5 in Spl. C.C. No. 73/2019 pending on the file of learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara (for brevity, ‘Trial Court’) for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 363, 114, 120B read with S.34 of Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) and Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015. His application filed before the Trial Court under Section 227 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short, Cr.P.C.) seeking his discharge from the said case came to be dismissed by the Order of the Trial Court dated 03.03.2020. Aggrieved by the same, the accused No.5 in the Trial Court is before this Court through this revision petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner is physically present in the Court. The respondent No.1 herein is being represented by learned High Court Government Pleader.

The respondent No.2 who was the de-facto complainant before the first respondent though served with the notice has remained unrepresented.

3. Though this matter is listed for admission, however, with the consent from both side, it is taken up for final disposal.

4. Perused the materials placed before this Court. Heard the arguments from both side.

5. The point that arises for my consideration is whether the impugned order of the Trial Court suffers from any perversity, illegality or error warranting interference by this Court?

6. The accusation made in the charge-sheet is that one deceased Ravi was in love with one Miss. Ashwini, daughter of accused No.4 Nagesh which was not acceptable to the father of said Miss. Ashwini (accused No.4). Despite several warnings given to the deceased by accused No.4, the deceased continued his love affair with said Ashwini which ultimately resulted in the murder of the said Ravi on 30.06.2019 at about 10.00 p.m. It is also alleged that prior to his murder, on the same day he was abducted by accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 and was taken to different place and was beaten up mercilessly with several weapons and ultimately he was murdered in a brutal manner using deadly weapons and inflicting multiple injuries upon him. It is alleged that the said incident of murder is the result of conspiracy hatched by the accused involving the present petitioner. Accordingly, the charge-sheet accuses the accused of the offences as mentioned above.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his arguments submitted that there is no whisper about the active involvement of the present petitioner (accused No.5) in the alleged commission of the crime. Every overt act alleged against the accused may be as against the remaining accused only but not against the present petitioner. He further submits that to prove the commission of an offence of abetment, one of the necessary ingredients is the presence of the abettor at the spot of the commission of the crime which allegedly took place. According to the charge-sheet the present petitioner (accused No.5) was not present at the spot of the alleged commission of the crime. Therefore, the necessary ingredients of abetment is not made out. He further submits that the alleged call details register and other documents showing the alleged telephonic conversation between the present petitioner and other accused has not been produced by the Investigating Officer. Further, the Trial Court has held that the question of filing of additional charge-sheet does not arise. Therefore, the prosecution cannot file any further document. As such also the present petitioner deserves to be discharged from the alleged offences.

8. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 submits that admittedly the present petitioner is brother-in-law of accused No.4 who is the father of Miss. Ashwini with whom the deceased was said to have maintained a love affair. He also submits that the complainant at the very first instance has named the present petitioner as accused for one of