At the stage of considering the application for discharge, the court is not required to scrutinize the entire evidence to arrive at a finding regarding the commission of the offence by the accused. The court must evaluate the material and documents on record to ascertain whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding with the trial against the accused.

S.G. Shah, J.

1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent - State.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Aamir S. Pathan for learned advocate Mr. Ashish Dagli for the applicant and learned APP Mr. K.P. Raval for the respondent - State.

3. Applicant has prayed to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 02.02.2016 by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Anand below Exhibit 7 in Special Atrocity Case No. 46 of 2015.

4. By such application, the applicant, being original accused has prayed the Sessions Court to discharge him from Special Atrocity Case No. 46 of 2015, which was initiated against him pursuant to Borsad Police Station I - C.R. No. 50 of 2014 under Sections 366, 506(II), 376 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1), 11(d) and 3(2)5 of the Prevention of Atrocity against (Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes) Act. The application at exhibit 7 is preferred by present petitioner preferring to discharge him from the charges leveled against him contending that, practically he is merely a contractor who has agreed and entered into a contract for constructing a house at different places and on all such sites, he has to engage mason, laborer and daily wager. It is, therefore, contended that at village Bochasan, he has to construct the house of one Manojbhai where also he has engaged some skilled and unskilled laborer and he simply supports the work and managing facility of such worker like drinking water etc and instructing them about the work but he is nowhere concerned with any such report in their personal life. It is further contended that accused No. 1 Govindbhai had been working on such site and he has no other relation with such accused except for his work on site. However, when he went to the site for supervision, father of the victim has abused him and uttered unparliamentary language and, therefore, when he inquired about such behaviour, he came to know about the offence, for which FIR was lodged. It is further contended that, thereafter he has received several phone calls from the father of the victim threatening him to involve him in case under Atrocities Act and, therefore, he had addressed a letter to District Superintendent of Police, Collector, Police Sub Inspector and other officers complaining about the activities of father of the victim. Therefore, it is contended that he has been wrongly implicated in such case and, hence, he has prayed to discharge him.

4.1 It is also contended that, complaint is given after 24 hours and that except complainant, none of the witnesses has disclosed his name and that he is not aware that complainant and accused are of scheduled caste.

5. The Sessions Court has after hearing both the sides considering the available material on record dismissed the application by impugned order. Perusal of impugned order shows that the Sessions Court has taken care of material evidence before it and thereby prima facie, there is no irregularity or illegality in the impugned order. However, to appreciate the application for discharge and the impugned order, I have perused the available record which goes to show that in FIR itself, the victim has categorically disclosed the name of the petitioner as an accused with a statement that all the three accused including present petitioner had taken her and driven her without her consent by force in a rickshaw towards Dholka via Sojitra road. Therefore, when there is categorical disclosure of the role of the petitioner in the complaint itself and when offence is regarding Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code i.e. kidnapping of Woman by three accused to the place of incident, obviously there cannot be a reference of all accused in the statement of all the witnesses and thereby there is prima facie evidence against petitioner which results into dismissal of this application for discharge.

6. However, if we peruse the settled legal position so far as right to get discharge is concerned, it becomes clear that at the t