Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

GUJARAT HIGH COURT
C.K.BUCH, J
AMRISH DEVNARAYAN RAJPUT – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 625 of 2004 | CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 626 of 2004 | CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 627 of 2004 | CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 629 of 2004 | CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 630 of 2004

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MR JR DAVE, MR YOGESH S. LAKHANI, MR ASHISH M. DAGLI, MR SV RAJU, MR CHETAN K. PANDYA
For the Respondents: MR MC SOOD, Addl.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

For discharge applications under Section 227 of CrPC, absence of grave suspicion mandates releasing the accused from charges, emphasizing the judiciary's duty to critically evaluate evidence rather than superficially endorsing prosecution claims.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 227 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 397, 143, 147, 149, 120(b), 201, 323, 435 - Discharge application - Accused prayed for discharge from charges of robbery - Court emphasizes that Judge must determine prima facie case and not merely be a 'mouthpiece of the prosecution' - In absence of grave suspicion, accused must be discharged - Rejection of the discharge application and the framing of charges under Section 397 quashed. (Paras 6-17)

(B) The court clarifies that mere suspicion or individual wrongful acts do not elevate to robbery or decoity which necessitates a collective intention and specific conditions as per Sections 390 and 397 - The mob psychology during the incident does not imply a coordinated effort to commit robbery. (Paras 8-12)

Findings of Court:
The Addl. Sessions Judge's order refusing to discharge the accused under section 397 is erroneous and an infringement of legal principles, necessitating a re-evaluation of charges based on the prosecution's evidentiary inadequacies.

Result: The accused are discharged from the charges under section 397 and transfer to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for remaining offences.

JUDGEMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 625 of 2004 With CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 626 of 2004 To CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 627 of 2004 With CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 629 of 2004 To CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 630 of 2004 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH ============================================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ============================================================== AMRISH DEVNARAYAN RAJPUT - Applicant(s) Versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s) ============================================================== Appearance : MR JR DAVE for Applicant(s) : 1, Mr.MC Sood, Addl.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1, ================================================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH Date : 09/08/2005 ORAL COMMON JUDGMENT

1. The present Group of Revision Applications are preferred by different petitioners accused against 2/33 JUDGMENT the common order of rejection of an application praying discharge under section 227 of CrPC by ld.

Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.8, City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad dated 31.08.2004 in Sessions Case No. 167/2004. The petitioners of all the Revision Applications are shown as an accused in the crime registered with Meghaninagar Police Station being CR.No. I.25/2004 for the offences punishable under various sections of Indian Penal Code . Petitioner of Cri. Rev. Application No. 625/2004 Amrish Devnarayan Rajput -original accused No.3 has preferred application exh. 12 praying discharge. Similarly, the petitioner of Cri. Revision Application No. 626/2004 Shri Anilbhai Chimanbhai Kella- original accused No.6 has preferred application exh.13 praying discharge, petitioner of Cri. Revision Application No. 627/2004 Bharat Hashmukhlal Shah-original accused No.7 has preferred application exh.13 praying discharge, petitioner of Cri. Rev. Application No. 629/2004 Kishorbhai Harjibhai Parmar- original accused No.4 has preferred application exh.12 praying discharge and the petitioner of Cri. Rev. Application No.630/2004 Chandulal Amthalal Patadia -original 3/33 JUDGMENT accused No.2 has preferred application exh.12 praying discharge. All of them have prayed that they should be discharged from the offence punishable under section 397 of IPC. Ld. Counsel Mr. JR Dave appears for the petitioner of Cri. Rev. Application No. 625/2004. Ld. Counsel Mr. Yogesh S.Lakhani appears for the petitioner of Cri. Rev. Application No. 626/2004 and ld. Counsel Mr.Ashish M.Dagli appears for the petitioner of Cri. Rev. application No. 627/2004. Ld. Counsel Mr. SV Raju appears for the petitioner of Cri. Rev. Application No.629/2004 and ld. Counsel Mr. Chetan K.Pandya appears for the petitioner of Cri. Rev. Application No.630/2004. Ld. Counsel appearing for the petitioners in this group of Revision Applications have taken this Court through the nature of allegations made in the complaint as well as through the papers of investigation received by them along with chargesheet. However, ultimately, all of them have concentrated their arguments that the ld. Trial Judge at least ought to have discharged the petitioners accused from the charge for the offence punishable under section 397 of IPC because there is 4/33 JUDGMENT no element of evidence, even prima facie, to show that the offence under section 397 of IPC was ever intended or has been committed by any of the petitioners accused. Ld. Counsel Mr. Chetan K.Pandya appearing for the petitioner of Cri. Rev. Application No. 630/2004 has

Click Here to Read the rest of this document