The judgment emphasizes the requirement of proving criminal conspiracy and the insufficiency of evidence to establish the petitioner's involvement, highlighting the importance of meeting of minds for an offence under Section 120-B of IPC.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner has invoked two different provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure by filing these ill-assorted petitions inasmuch as Miscellaneous Criminal Case (M.Cr.C. No.14139/2021) has been filed under Section 482 of the Code for quashing the charge-sheet filed against him vis-a vis Crime No.196/2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Budhni, District Sehore and Criminal Revision (Cr.R. No.1678/2021) has been filed under Section 394/401 of the CrPC against the order dated 19.02.2021 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Budhni, District Sehore, in Sessions Trial No.152/2019 arising out of same crime number whereby charge under Section 302/120-B of the IPC has been framed against the petitioner.

2. The main thrust of challenge in both the petitions is based on a ground of fallaciously implication of the petitioner by unnecessarily roping him in the crime. As per the petitioner, his induction in the crime is solely ill-founded as on the basis of material available on record, offence under Sections 302 and 120-B of the IPC is not made out against him.

In the circumstance, the petitioner seeks for his exculpation.

Since the facts involved in both these petitions as also the material available on record, are one and the same, therefore, these cases are being heard and decided by this common order.

3. The genesis of the crime arose out of an incident when the Police of Police Station Budhni, District Sehore, after investigating registered the offence vide Crime No.196/2019 punishable under Sections 307 and 302/34 of the IPC and filed a charge-sheet under Sections 307, 302, 34 and 120-B of the IPC against various accused persons including the petitioner/applicant.

(3.1) As per the case of the prosecution, an FIR vis-a-vis an incident said to have occurred on 17.05.2019 at about 04.30 am, was lodged by the complainant who was working as a Waiter in Yadav Dhaba on the same day at about 08.30 am saying that on the date of incident, at about 04.00 am, four persons namely Imlesh Rai, Vishnu Sharma, Mahesh Bhat and Pawan Sikarwar who used to often visit dhaba, reached there on motorcycle and on that day, some dispute with regard to payment of bill arose between the accused and dhaba owner, which culminated into scuffle. Then, after making a phone call by Imlesh Rai to somebody, they tried to escape from the spot, but Surendra (dhaba owner) chased them and thereafter, in a Bolero jeep three-four persons armed with weapons came and inflicted injuries to Surendra and as a consequence, he fell down on the ground and those persons fled away from the spot. Thereafter, an ambulance was called and Surendra was admitted to Budhni Hospital, but during medication, he breathed his last. As a result thereof, an offence has been registered against Imlesh Rai, Vishnu Sharma, Mahesh Bhat, Pawan Sikarwar along with three-four unknown persons including the petitioner/applicant.

4. Mr. Datt, learned Senior Advocate submits that owing to business rivalry as also political motivation, the name of the petitioner/applicant has been involved so as to make him accused in the alleged offence. As per learned Senior Counsel, even if the material available on record to implicate the petitioner/applicant is considered to be true on its face value, then it is clear that offence under Section 302 of the IPC is not made out against him. It is also claimed by him that since the charge under Section 120-B of the IPC is not made out against him, therefore, the entire charge-sheet in relation to the petitioner/applicant is liable to be set aside. However, during the course of arguments, learned Senior Counsel has claimed that while framing the charge against the petitioner/applicant, the trial Court has completely failed to appreciate the fact that the required ingredients for constituting an offence under Sections 302 so also 120-B of the IPC are lacking and as such, the peti