Case Note & Summary
The case arose from the brutal murder of Sunil Kumar Lahoria, proprietor of M/s. S.K. Builders and Developers, at Vashi, Navi Mumbai, on 16th February 2013. The prosecution alleged that 14 accused persons, including builders and contract killers, conspired to kill Lahoria due to his habit of lodging complaints and initiating legal proceedings against builders. On the day of the incident, at about 8.20 a.m., assailants dressed as security staff and plain clothes attacked Lahoria outside his office with firearms and sharp weapons. After the assault, while fleeing, one assailant uttered names of several persons, including Sumeet Bachewar (accused no.4) and others, accusing them of orchestrating the murder. Lahoria was taken to Hiranandani Fortis Hospital where he made two oral dying declarations to his office boy and son, implicating Sumeet Bachewar, Suresh Bijlani, Anurag Garg, S.P. Agrawal, and Bhupesh Gupta. He succumbed to multiple firearm injuries at 10.20 a.m. The FIR was lodged promptly. Investigation led to a chargesheet against 14 accused under Sections 302, 120B, 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 3/25, 3/27, and 4/27 of the Indian Arms Act. During the trial, accused nos. 4 (Sumeet Bachewar) and 5 (Mohit @ Altaf Khan) filed applications for discharge, which were rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, on 15th June 2016, primarily relying on the dying declarations and other material showing prima facie involvement. The High Court heard the revision applications against this rejection. The court noted the Supreme Court’s cautionary observations in Babubhai Bokhiria and Madan Mohan Singh regarding balancing the need to punish the guilty with the strain of unnecessary prosecution. The court proceeded to examine whether the trial court’s order suffered from any perversity or legal infirmity, focusing on whether the material on record justified framing of charges. The final decision on the revisions was reserved on 27th January 2017 and pronounced on 1st February 2017.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law – General Principles – Maxim and Fair Trial – The court reminded itself of the maxim 'judex damnatur cum nocens absolvitur' (a judge is condemned when a guilty person escapes punishment) but also observed that credibility of the justice delivery system comes under severe strain when a person is put on trial only for acquittal. (Paras 1-2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the revision petitioners (accused nos. 4 and 5) can successfully assail the impugned common order dated 15th June 2016 rejecting their applications for discharge in Sessions Case No.281 of 2013
Law Points
- Sufficiency of evidence at stage of discharge
- Prima facie case for framing charge
- Oral dying declaration
- Criminal conspiracy
- Revisional jurisdiction
- Maxim judex damnatur cum nocens absolvitur
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (02) 56
Criminal Revision Application No.383 of 2016 and Criminal Revision Application No.377 of 2016
Mr.S.V. Kotwal i/b. Mr.A.Y. Patil, Mr.Dixit i/b. Mrs.Sudha Dwivedi, Mrs.A.S. Pai, Addl.P.P., Mr.Sanjiv Sawant
Sumeet Ganpatrao Bachewar, Mohit @ Altaf Aftab Khan
The State of Maharashtra & Anr., The State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision against rejection of discharge applications in a murder case
Remedy Sought
The revision petitioners/accused sought discharge from Sessions Case No.281 of 2013
Filing Reason
The accused sought discharge on the ground that there was no sufficient evidence to proceed against them; the trial court rejected the applications, leading to the revision
Previous Decisions
The Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, by order dated 15th June 2016, rejected the discharge applications filed by accused nos. 4 and 5
Issues
Whether there was sufficient material to frame charges against the revision petitioners for offences under IPC and Arms Act
Ratio Decidendi
The court emphasized the maxim 'judex damnatur cum nocens absolvitur' but noted that credibility of the justice delivery system comes under severe strain when a person is put on trial only for acquittal
Judgment Excerpts
Before we proceed to consider the case, we must remind ourselves the maxim "judex damnatur cum nocens absolvitur" which means that a Judge is condemned when a guilty person escapes punishment. But, at the same time, we cannot forget that credibility of the justice delivery system comes under severe strain when a person is put on trial only for acquittal.
The criminal trial is not exactly a pleasant experience.
fcYMjksls iaxk ysds vPNk ugh fd;k- lqjs'k fctykuh] vuqjkx xxZ] Hkqis"k xqIrk] lqfer cPpsokj] ,l- ih- vxjoky] jktw xqIrk] xtjk] bu yksxsls iaxk ysds vPNk ugh fd;k- cksyk Fkk] uoh eqacbZ NksMds tkusds fy;s] ;s rks gksukgh Fkk- bUgksusgh rqekjk dke djok;k gS
QkWVhZl pyks- lqjs'k fctykuh] vuqjkx xxZ] bUgksus eq>s ejok;k- vc eS ugh cpqaxk- eq>s yxkrkj /kedh nsrs jgs vkSj bUgksusgh eq>s ejok;k
lqjs'k fctykuh] vuqjkx xxZ] lqfer cPpsokj] ,l- ih- vxjoky] Hkqis"k xqIrk] bu lc yksxkus eq>s ejok;k gS . vc eS ugh cpqaxk
Procedural History
Crime No.67 of 2013 registered at Vashi Police Station, District Thane, on 16.02.2013 at the instance of Surjeet Surjansingh Kalra. Investigation transferred to Crime Branch, Mumbai. Chargesheet filed against 14 accused under IPC and Arms Act. Sessions Case No.281 of 2013 commenced before Additional Sessions Judge, Thane. Accused nos. 4 and 5 filed discharge applications (Exhibits 161 and 174). By order dated 15.06.2016, the Additional Sessions Judge rejected the discharge applications. Revision applications filed before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302, 120B, 201, 34
- Indian Arms Act, 1959: 3/25, 3/27, 4/27
