The main legal point established in the judgment is that at the stage of framing charges, the court must evaluate the material and documents on record for the limited purpose of finding sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused, without delving into the probative value of the material.

S.G. Shah, J.

1. Heard Mr. Aamirkhan S. Pathan, learned advocate for the applicant and Ms. J.D. Jhaveri, learned APP for respondent No. 1 - State and perused the record.

2. Petitioner is original accused facing the charges under Sections 302, 307, 324, 143, 147, 148, 149 and 34 of I.P.C. with Section 135 of G.P. Act pursuant to FIR being Ist C.R. No. 158 of 2013 dated 25.11.2013.

3. Petitioner has filed an application at Exh.9 before the Sessions Court at Gondal in Sessions Case No. 22 of 2014 which arises from the aforesaid complaint to discharge him from the charges alleged against him, under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. By impugned judgment and order dated 19.9.2014, the second Additional Sessions Judge, Gondal has rejected such application and hence this Revision.

4. If we peruse the factual details, complaint was filed by one Suryakant @ Suresh Keshubhai @ Keshavlal Patel Bhalani resident of Gondal on 25.11.2013 that on the very same day, all the accused whose names are disclosed in the FIR had came to his father on their Wadi and one Bhavesh as well as one fatty man with specks had given a blow with knife on the abdomen of his father, whereby, his father fell down and in between two people have caught his father and three of them have given blow on upper part of the chest of his uncle and when Shantibhai, brother of the complainant, had tried to rescue them, he was also got injured by the blow of knife on his right leg. It is further stated that thereupon he had shouted and, thereby other people from surroundings had gathered there and thereby, the people who were assaulting them had run away in their jeep from the place of incident. It is further stated in the FIR that because of such injuries, father and uncle of the complainant had died on the spot, whereas, his elder brother was shifted to Gondal and then to Rajkot for treatment since his injuries were serious. Therefore, FIR was lodged against Mitesh, Bhavesh, Soni and 3-4 other persons. So far as cause of quarrel is concerned, it is stated that his uncle has sold some land to Soni for which litigations are going on in the Court and, therefore, there was disturbance amongst them. Pending investigation the police has, by letter dated 27.11.2013 added Section 212 and by letter dated 3.12.2013 added Section 201.

5. If we peruse the application at Exh.9 before the Sessions Court filed by the petitioner for getting discharge, it is contended by the petitioner that Panchnama dated 27.11.2013 is got up one which is annexed with the chargesheet and that Panch witness had never been to his house and that he had never committed any offence and that though he was knowing the other accused namely Mitesh Dhakan, Bhavesh Dhakan, Mayur Dhakan, Sanket Dhakan, however, he had never disclosed to the police that they have committed any offence. It is further stated in the application that he has been wrongly implicated in the FIR only because he is Sarpanch and he is of the same caste - Soni alleging that he had never given them shelter in his house. It is further submitted that he has never supported the accused and that he has never been a part of conspiracy, if any, wherein other accused have been involved. It is also further stated that he has been implicated in such offence because of political pressure and that there is no statement in entire chargesheet that he has given a consent and, therefore, there is no evidence and that Investigating Agency has not included the statement of mobile calls so as to ascertain that he had no conversation with other accused either for conspiracy or before committing the crime as alleged in the FIR. It is lastly contended that he even does not know the accused but came to know about them only after this incident.

6. In this background, if we peruse the chargesheet, it becomes clear that there is specific allegation in the chargesheet that present petitioner being accused No. 6 Mansukkbhai @ Khimjibhai @ Sarpanch Son of Narota