Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Shashikant R. Kulkarni, was accused No.9 in Sessions Case No.27/2010 arising out of C.R. No.I220/2006 registered at Kalamboli police station for the murders of Pavanraje Nimbalkar and his driver on 3rd June 2006. The applicant was charged with criminal conspiracy under Section 120B read with Section 302 IPC. He filed a discharge application before the Sessions Judge, Alibaug, which was rejected on 6th December 2010. Aggrieved, he filed the present revision application before the Bombay High Court. The High Court examined the material on record, including the charge-sheet and statements of witnesses. It found that there was no direct or circumstantial evidence linking the applicant to the conspiracy. The only allegation was that the applicant had some prior acquaintance with some of the co-accused, but no specific act or agreement was shown. The court held that mere suspicion or association is insufficient to frame a charge for criminal conspiracy. Applying the standard under Section 227 CrPC, the court concluded that there was no sufficient ground to proceed against the applicant. Consequently, the revision application was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the applicant was discharged from the case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Discharge under Section 227 - Standard of Proof - The court must consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; if the evidence does not disclose a prima facie case, discharge is warranted. (Paras 1-10)
B) Indian Penal Code - Criminal Conspiracy - Section 120B - Requirement of Agreement - Mere suspicion or association is not enough; there must be some material to show an agreement between the accused and others to commit the offence. (Paras 5-10)
C) Evidence - Prima Facie Case - At the stage of framing of charges, the court is not to weigh evidence meticulously but must see if a strong suspicion exists; if not, discharge is proper. (Paras 5-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the applicant/accused No.9 is entitled to be discharged from the case for the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC read with Section 302 IPC, in the absence of any prima facie evidence against him.
Final Decision
The revision application is allowed. The impugned order dated 6th December 2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Alibaug, is set aside. The applicant is discharged from Sessions Case No.27/2010.
Law Points
- Discharge under Section 227 CrPC
- Criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC
- Prima facie case
- Standard of proof at charge stage
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (03) 141
Criminal Revision Application No.65 of 2011
Mr. Harshad Ponda, Senior Advocate a/w. Abad H. Ponda, Dinesh Tiwari, Amit Karwa & Ms. Sabiha Mukadam i/b. Dinesh Tiwari & Associates for the Applicant; Mr. S.K. Shinde for Respondent No.2 – C.B.I.; Mrs. S.D. Shinde, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1 – State
Mr. Shashikant R. Kulkarni
The State of Maharashtra, Central Bureau of Investigation
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision application challenging the order rejecting discharge of accused No.9 in a murder case.
Remedy Sought
Setting aside the order dated 6th December 2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Alibaug, and discharge of the applicant from Sessions Case No.27/2010.
Filing Reason
The applicant was charged with criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC for the murders of Pavanraje Nimbalkar and his driver, but there was no prima facie evidence against him.
Previous Decisions
The Sessions Judge, Alibaug, rejected the discharge application on 6th December 2010.
Issues
Whether the applicant is entitled to discharge under Section 227 CrPC for lack of prima facie evidence of criminal conspiracy.
Submissions/Arguments
The applicant argued that there is no material to show his involvement in the conspiracy; mere acquaintance with co-accused is insufficient.
The prosecution contended that there is sufficient material to frame charges against the applicant.
Ratio Decidendi
For framing a charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC, there must be some material on record to show an agreement between the accused and others to commit the offence. Mere suspicion or association is not sufficient. At the stage of discharge under Section 227 CrPC, if no prima facie case is made out, the accused is entitled to be discharged.
Judgment Excerpts
By the present Revision Application, applicant/orig.accused No.9 in C.R. No.I220/2006 registered with Kalamboli police station, Navi Mumbai prayed for setting aside the order dated 6th December, 2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Alibaug.
The court held that there is no sufficient ground to proceed against the applicant for the offence of criminal conspiracy.
Procedural History
C.R. No.I220/2006 was registered on 3rd June 2006 for murders. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed. The applicant (accused No.9) filed a discharge application before the Sessions Court, Alibaug, which was rejected on 6th December 2010. The applicant then filed Criminal Revision Application No.65 of 2011 before the Bombay High Court, which was allowed on 24th March 2011.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302, 120B, 34, 325
- Arms Act, 1959: 27
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 227
