Mukesh Popatlal Gada vs State Of Maharashtra

Heard both sides for final disposal. Applicant is aggrieved by the order passed by the Sessions Court rejecting the application for discharge

preferred by the applicant.

2 The applicant is arrayed as an accused in CR No.111 of 2013, registered with Faraskhana Police Station, Pune, for the offences punishable under

Sections 307, 120-B of IPC read with Section 4(25) of the Arms Act and Section 37(1) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act.

3 Prosecution case in nutshell is as follows:

(a) On 13th June, 2013, three unknown persons assaulted complainant Nikhil Avaghade when he was standing with his three friends. The accused

were armed with sickle, sattur and sword, had assaulted the complainant. His friends managed to ran away from the place of incident. The

complainant sustained injuries.

(b) During the course of investigation, it was revealed that property viz. Tulsabai Wada, House No.1001, Budhwar Peth, Pune, was purchased by the

applicant. There were some tenants in the property. Some of them had vacated their premises to the applicant or the owner of the property. One of

the tenant, namely, Mehabooba Mulla did not vacate the premises.

(c) The ex-corporator of the area, namely, Datta Sagare, was allegedly the friend of the applicant â€" accused. With the help of Datta Sagare, the

applicant came into contact with Baba Bodake, for vacating the premises of Tulsabai Wada. There was a Darga in the said property, which was

visited by the complainant frequently for a prayer. He was told by the tenant Mulla that the property owner is trying to vacate the premises by

threatening. The complainant is also an anti social element. It is alleged that there was a conspiracy between the accused to assault the complainant

who was intervening in the said transaction.

(d) The investigating officer recorded statements of witnesses. After recording statements and collecting the evidence, charge-sheet was filed

before the Court.

(e) During the course of investigation, police arrested four person viz. Anand @ Anand Siddhu Kadam, Avinash Laxman Rete, Manoj Kailas Jagtap,

Manoj @ Manya Gorakh Sonawane on 13th June, 2013. The applicant was arrested on the allegation that he had given contract to one Baba Bodke

for vacating Mulla from said property.

(f) It is alleged that Baba Bodkae requisitioned services of Vinod Kataram and Balli Thakur for the purpose of evicting Mulla from the residential

premises. However, the complainant met Mulla on 6th June, 2013, and asked him not to entertain Vinod Kataram and Balli Thakur, who were

contemplating to evict him from the premises as according to him, if he secures possession of the premises held by Mulla, he would get commission in

respect thereof.

(g) In pursuance to conspiracy the complainant was assaulted by assailants.

4 Applicant preferred an application for discharge before the Sessions Court at Pune. The said application was rejected on 30th January, 2016. Hence,

the applicant has invoked the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to challenge the impugned order and seeking discharge from

the said proceedings.

5 Mr.Jha, learned counsel appearing for the applicant made following submissions:

(i) There is no evidence against the applicant to proceed against him. The prosecution has not established the involvement of the applicant in the said

crime.

(ii) The dispute appears to be between the two groups who were trying to hold supremacy in relation to the disputed property and the applicant is not

concerned with the incident of assault. The complainant was assaulted by unknown persons. There is no substantial evidence to establish that the

assailants were acting at the instance of the applicant.

(iii) Admittedly, the prosecution case is that most of the tenants had vacated the premises except one of the tenant Mr.Mulla. there is no material to

show that the applicant had any point of time was trying to evict that person by using force.

(iv) There is no evidence to establish link between accused who had assaulted injured and the applicant having conspired with them to assault the

complainant. There is no reason to assault the complainant, as the applicant is the purchaser of the property, he had followed due process of law while

entering into the transaction and there was no impediment in redeveloping the said property. There is no resistance from any other person from

vacating the premises excepting one person who had continued to occupy the said premises.

(v) From the statements on record, it is apparent that two gangs were trying to enter into the said property without any connivance with the applicant.

There is nothing on record to show that there was any animosity between the applicant and the injured person. The applicant, thus, has no reason to

assault the complainant and the injured. The charge of conspiracy cannot be inferred and there has to be substantial evidence to support the charge.

(vi) To frame the charge against the accused, prima facie case is required to be made out, which is lacking in the present case. The applicant can be

held responsible, and liable if any harm would have been caused to Mulla at the hands of Anand @ Anand Siddhu Kadam, Avinash Laxman Rete,

Manoj Kailas Jagtap, Manoj @ Manya Gorakh Sonawane, seeking to evict him from the premises. However, admittedly, no harm was caused to

Mulla. Applicant having not requisitioned services of Baba Bodake who in turn secured services of Vinod Kataram, Balli Thakur, cannot be held

responsible for the incident dated 13th June, 2013, in which the complainant was inflicted with injuries.

(vii) There is no material worth to put the applicant on trial, and, therefore, the Sessions Court has committed an error in rejecting the application for

discharge. The applicant did not requisitioned services of the three unknown person who assaulted the complainant, and, there is no evidence that the

attack on the injured is engineered by the applicant or launched at his instance, and, therefore, the applicant cannot be held responsible for the act of

two warring groups.

(viii) No charge can be framed on the basis of the material on record collected during investigation. The trial Court lost sight of the aforesaid fact

while rejecting application for discharge. If on the basis of evidence before the Court, no charge could be framed against the applicantâ€"accused, the

Court ought not to have rejected the application for discharge.

(xi) There is no consistency in the prosecution case, there is no motive for the applicant to assault the injured person. There is no legal evidence to

substantiate the charge of conspiracy. Learned counsel pointed out various statements of the witnesses and submitted that taking the prosecution case

as it is, applicant cannot be prosecuted for the said offences.

(x) Assuming that the case of the prosecution to be true, there cannot be a charge under Section 307 of IPC in the present case. The nature of injuries

sustained by the complainant, do not warrant the charge under Section 307 of IPC. The applicant was admitted in hospital on 14th June, 2013, and,

was discharged shortly thereafter. The nature of the injuries sustained by the complainant are not sufficient to hold that there was any intention on the

part of the accused to commit murder, and, therefore, the prosecution ought not to have invoked the charge under Section 307 of IPC. It is submitted

that in the absence of the charge under Section 307 of IPC, case would be tried by the subordinate Court. To frame charge under Section 307 of IPC,

the evidence on record and the injuries sustained by the injured should spell out the intention to commit murder, which is a requisite ingredient to

constitute the said charge.

(xi) To prosecute the accused by invoking the charge of conspiracy, there has to be cogent material before the Court. The requisite elements to

constitute the charge of conspiracy has to be present in the chargeâ€"sheet. There has to be meeting of mind of two or more persons, which is sine

qua non of conspiracy.

(xii) It is submitted that if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that evidence produced against the accused raises suspicion only as

distinguished from grave suspension, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. In the present case, the prosecution is proceedings

merely on the basis of suspicion which is not enough to frame charge against the applicant for the said offences.

(xiii) Mr.Jha placed reliance on several decisions and stressed upon principles enunciated in the said decision by the Supreme Court as well as various

other Courts to draw support to his submission that the accused can be tried for the offence if prima facie case is made out to proceed. The charge of

conspiracy requires the evidence of meeting of minds. The charge under Section 307 of IPC can be invoked in the event there is material before the

Court to show that the assailants had intended to cause death of the person and there was an attempt to murder the victim.

(xiv) Mr.Jha, pointed out medical certificate with regards to the injuries sustained by the complainant and submitted that none of the injuries is grave in

nature to attract the charge under Section 307 of IPC.

(xv) Reliance is placed on the following decisions:

(1) Hanif Usmanbhai Kalva & Ors Vs. State of Gujarat ;

(2) State of Punjab Vs. Bant Singh 1996 SCC OnLine P &H 167;

(3) Parsuram Pandey & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar ;

(4) Eknath Govarya Pawar & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra ;

(5) State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy & Ors. (1977) 2 SCC 699 ;

(6) Yogesh Alias Sachin Jagdish Joshi Vs. State of Maharashtra (2008) 10 SCC 39Â Â and

(7) State of U.P. Vs.Dr.Sanjay Singh & Anr. 1994 Supp (2) SCC 707

6 Mr.Patil, learned APP appearing for the State vehemently opposed the reliefs sought by the applicant. It is submitted that there is voluminous

evidence against the applicant to prosecute him for the said offences. The incident had occurred on 13th June, 2013. The complainant was assaulted

by the assailants by using deadly weapons. The statements of witnesses indicate involvement of the applicant. There is prima facie evidence to

support the charge of conspiracy and the charge under Section 307 of IPC. The applicant is purchaser of the subject property and interested in

developing the said property.

The evidence on record clearly indicate that there was a conspiracy between the applicant and the co-accused, which has resulted in the assault on

the complainant. The applicant had a motive to participate in the crime being the purchaser of the property and considering the fact that one of the

tenants had not vacated the premises. It is further submitted that at the time of dealing with an application for discharge, the Court is not expected to

conduct a roving inquiry and what is required is prima facie evidence to warrant framing of charge. In the present case, there is evidence before the

Court which is analysed by the Sessions Court, and, therefore, the application is devoid of merits. It is further submitted that the submissions advanced

by the counsel for the applicant are his probable defences, which can be considered only at the time of trial and at this stage, the Court is not required

to appreciate the evidence. He pointed out statements of witnesses, which according to him, reflects the complicity of the applicant being conspirator

in the said crime, which is sufficient evidence to proceed against him. He pointed out the statement of one Sarjerao Konde, recorded on 14th July,

2013, statement of Sachin Balli dated 20th July, 2013 and statement of Nitin Tembhe, recorded during the course of investigation on 22nd July, 2013.

Learned APP also pointed out statement of one Harshal Jagtap dated 28th July, 2013. It is submitted that the statements of all these witnesses clearly

establishes the involvement of the applicant in the said crime. He also pointed out the nature of injuries sustained by the complainant. It is submitted

that the injured had sustained injuries on his forehead, chest and other parts of his body. It is submitted that what is required to be seen at the stage of

framing of charge is that the assailants were armed with dangerous weapons like sickle, sword, Sattur and had assaulted the victim. The manner in

which he was assaulted on vital parts of the body in pursuant to conspiracy and the object of assault are sufficient to draw an inference that the only

intention of the accused was to liquidate the complainant, which warrants for framing of the charge under Section 307 of IPC. Mr.Patil, relied upon

several decisions in support of his arguments about the scope while dealing with the application for discharge and the limitation on the Courts at that

stage. He also relied upon the decisions in support of his submissions with regard to charge under Section 307 of IPC and submitted that the nature of

the act committed by the accused, the manner of assault and the nature of injuries sustained, are the relevant factors to frame the charge under

Section 307 of IPC. He also submitted that the gravity of the injuries sustained may not be a relevant factor at the stage of framing of charge and

what is required to be seen is that the accused had assaulted jointly by inflicting blows with the use of deadly weapons and the blows were inflicted on

vital part of body.

Learned APP, relied upon the following decisions:

(1) State of MP Vs. S.B. Johari & Ors. (2000)2 SCC 57 ;

(2) P. Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala & Anr. (2010) 2 SCC 398;

(3) State of Maharashtra Vs. Salman Salim Khan & Anr. (2004) 1 SCC 525 ;

(4) Indu Jain Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (2008) 15 SCC 341;

(5) Anjani Kumar Chaudhary Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (2014) 12 SCC 286 ;

(6) Ratan Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. (2009) 12 SCC 585and

(7) Vineet Mahajan Vs. State of Punjab & Ors (2017) 14 SCC 803.

7 Having heard both the sides and also going through the documents on record, it can be seen that the alleged incident had occurred on 13th June,

2013, wherein the assailants had assaulted injured Nikhil Avghade by using Sickle, sattur and sword. The injured was accompanied by his friend who

managed to run away from the place of incident. The injured was taken to the hospital. The injury certificate indicate that he had sustained CLW on

the left side of forehead, CLW on the right side of chest, CLW on the left hand, CLW on the right upper back, CLW to his little finger. In pursuant to

the incident, the statement of the complainant was recorded, which was treated as FIR against unknown person. The investigation commenced and

several persons were arrested. During the course of investigation it was revealed the there was a conspiracy to attack the injured person. The case of

the prosecution is that the applicant is the purchaser of the subject property. Most of the tenants who were occupants of the premises has settled with

the applicant and vacated the premises after accepting compensation. However, one person, namely, Mulla continued to occupy the premises. The

applicant being the purchaser of the property had entered into the conspiracy with the co-accused and it was decided to take action against the

complainant . The Investigating Officer has recorded statement of several witnesses including statements which are referred hereinabove. The

applicant was arrested. On completing investigation, the charge-sheet was filed. Statements of Sarjerao Konde, were recorded on 14th July, 2013 and

20th July, 2013. According to him, on 6th July, 2013 at about 7:00 p.m., he had visited the Darga, which is situated within the precinct of the disputed

premises. He came across Baba Bodke, Datta Sagare, Manoj Sonawane, Vinod Kataram having discussions amongst themselves. At that point of

time Baba Bokde was in angry mood and he stated that he has given word to Mukesh Gada. He also said how the work of Wada is not done. All of

them were discussing that Nikhil Avghade is not allowing them to complete the work of Wada and he should be liquidated. Baba Bodke told Vinod

and Manoj that initiate action against Nikhil Avaghade but warned them that there should not be any evidence against them while accomplishing the

act. Manoj told them that some boys residing near Dandekar Bridge are in need of money and one of them, namely, Manoj Jagtap is known to him, he

can be engaged for the work. Baba told them that they should not worry about money. The deal involved huge money and Mukesh Gada has assured

to them money. He also told them to remove Nikhil Avghade who is interfering in the deal. In the subsequent statement of the said witness, he

reiterated the said version. Statement of Sachin alias Balli. Sudhakar Balkavade was recorded on 20th July, 2013. Statement of Mohammed Shaikh

recorded on 14th July, 2013 states that Tulsabai Wada was purchased by Mukesh Gada. He always accompanies ex- corporator Datta Sagare. On

6th June, 2013, Nikhil Avghade met him at Darga. He told him about work of vacating the Wada. He told him to inform Balli Thakur and Vinod

Kataram who had undertaken the said work that he would look into said aspect and could get commission. The said person be warned not to interfere

therein. His supplementary statement was recorded on 20th July, 2018, which also reiterates the same version. The statement of Nitin Tembhe also

reiterates the version of the aforesaid witness Sachin @ Balli Balkavade had stated that, he visits Darga on every Thursday. Tulsabai Wada situated

near Darga is purchased by Mukesh Gada for development/construction. One of the tenant, namely, Mulla was not vacating premises. There was

dispute between Gada and Mulla. Baba Bodke, Vinod Kataram are his friends. He knows Datta Sagare. Mukesh Gada had assigned the work of

Mediation to Baba Bodke. He alongwith Vinod had approached Mulla at the request of Baba Bodke to find out his expectations. On 6th June, 2012,

the witnesses and his friends Baba Bodke, Vinod Kataram and Manoj Sonawane went to Darga. At that time Baban Shaikh informed him that Nikhil

Avaghade had told to pass on message that they should not interfere in the subject of vacating premises. Baba Bodke was angry. The witness than

referred to conversation between Baba Bodke and others referred to by earlier witness. The tenor of the statements indicate the involvement of the

applicant being the purchaser of the property and giving assurances to Baba Bodke and also instructing them to take action against Nikhil Avghade

and involvement of several persons as conspirators in crime. Manoj Jagtap is one of the assailant who had assaulted the complainant. Thus, there is

sufficient evidence to proceed against applicant veracity of the said statements would be matter of trial.

8 It is a settled law that prima facie evidence is required for proceeding against the accused. In the case of Hanif Ustanabhai Kalva (Supra), which is

relied upon by the advocate for the applicant, the Gujarat High Court has analysed the scope of Section 307 of IPC. It is observed that for determining

the nature of the offence, more particularly, the offences under Section 307 of IPC, the guiding factors would be whether there was an attempt to

commit murder. The Court analysed the provisions of Section 323, 326 and 324 etc. and analysed requirement of Section 307 and its essential. It was

observed that the most important ingredients to constitute/commit said offence is the intention and knowledge, which is necessitate the prosecution to

establish that the intention of the accused was one of the three kinds mentioned in Section 300 of IPC. In paragraph 26 of the said decision it is

observed that intention which is a state of mind, can never be precisely proved by direct evidence as a fact, it can only be deduced or inferred from

other facts which are proved. The intention may be proved by res gestae, by acts or events previous or subsequent to the incident or occurrence, on

admission. Intention of a person cannot be proved by direct evidence but is to be deduced from the facts and circumstances of the case. There are

various relevant circumstances from which the intention can be gathered (1) the nature of the weapon used; (2) the place where the injuries were

inflicted; (3) the nature of injuries caused; (4) the opportunity available which the accused gets. Analyzing the said principles in the present case, it

can be seen that the accused were armed with deadly weapons like sickle, sattur and sword and the injured was assaulted on the vital parts of his

body. In the case of State of Punjab Vs. Bant Singh (Supra), Punjab and Haryana High Court has dealt with similar issues and reiterated the said

principles and elaborated the requirements of Section 307 of IPC. It was observed that to charge a person under Section 307 IPC it shall have to be

shown as to what was the actual intention of assault as also what is the nature of injury. The said decision was rendered in appeal against acquittal

preferred by State and against conviction by accused. In case of Eknath Govarya Pawar & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra (Supra), this Court has

also considered the applicability of Section 307 and in the facts and circumstances of the said case, the accused were discharged. In the said decision,

it was observed that the requirement under Section 307 of IPC are not available in the FIR. It was not the duty of the complainant to hold the handle

of the car to stop the same. The proper course open to him was to chase the vehicle or give wireless message to the traffic officer on the next signal

or give intimation to the control room. It is possible that applicant no.1 may not be knowing that the complainant was holding handle of the car. At the

most, it can be said that applicant no.1 and other applicants tried to run away from the spot, by driving the car in a rash and negligent manner to avoid

police action. Thus, there was no intention to commit murder, as envisaged under Section 307 of IPC.

9 In the case of Parsuram Pandey & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar (Supra), the Apex Court while dealing with the requirements of Section 307 of IPC

observed that Section 307 contemplates an act which is done with intention of causing death, but, which fails to bring about the intended consequences

on account of intervening circumstances. To constitute an offence under Section 307 two ingredients of the offence must be present (a) an intention

of or knowledge regarding to commission of murder; (b) the doing of an act towards it. In the case of State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy & Ors.

(Supra), the Supreme Court has observed that inherent powers are designed to achieve a Salutary public purpose that a Court proceedingsÂ

ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution.  Mr.Jha, relied upon the observations made by the

Court in paragraph 8 of the decision. It is observed that, the prosecution could not point out any material on the basis of which a reasonable

likelihood of the respondents being convicted of any offence in connection with the attempted murder of the complainant. It was further observed that

it is wrong to say that at the stage of framing charge, the Court cannot apply its judicial mind to the consideration whether or nor there is ground for

presuming the commission of the offence by the accused. The order framing charge affects persons liberty substantially and, therefore, it is the duty

of the Court to consider judicially whether the material warrants the framing of the charge. It cannot blindly accept the decision of the prosecution that

the accused be asked to face trial. In the case of Yogesh Joshi Vs. State of Maharashtra (Supra), the Supreme Court has enumerated the

requirements of the charge of conspiracy. It is observed that the basic ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are (1) an agreement between

two or more persons; (2) the agreement must related to doing or causing to be done either (a) an illegal act; or (b) an act which is not illegal in itself

but is done by illegal means. Meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing or causing to be done an illegal act or ant by illegal means is sine qua

non of criminal conspiracy. The Supreme Court also observed that a conspiracy is always hatched in secrecy and it is impossible to adduce direct

evidence of the common intention of the conspirators and the meeting of minds of the conspiracy can be inferred from the circumstances proved by

the prosecution, if such inference is possible. The Court also dealt with scope of Section 227 of Criminal Procedure Code and held that, if two views

are equally possible and the judge is satisfied that evidence produced gives rise to suspicion only as distinguished from grave suspicion, he would be

fully within his rights to discharge accused. In the case of State of Uttarpradesh Vs. Dr.Sanjay Singh (Supra), the Supreme Court has observed that

mere suspicion of motive is not a sufficient ground for framing charges, in the absence of any material, prima facie, showing that particular motive

passed into action and that the accused is connected with that action. In the factual aspects involved in the said matter, it was concluded that on

scrutinizing the entire material placed on record, even if unrebutted or totally accepted, the Court is of the view that it does not make out a case for

conviction and mere suspicion of motive cannot serve as a sufficient ground for framing the charges.

10 Analyzing the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisions, to the facts of the present case, it can be seen that the statements of the witnesses and the

circumstances existing herein, there is sufficient evidence to proceed against applicant. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. S.B. Johari &

Ors. (Supra), the Court has taken into consideration the factors to be considered while framing charge. It is observed that proof of conspiracy in most

of the cases is based on circumstantial evidence. It is further observed that , the exercise of appreciating material produced by prosecution at the

stage of framing of charge is wholly unjustified. The High Court in the said case had quashed the charge framed against accused in exercise of

revisional jurisdiction. It was held that the entire approach of High Court is illegal and erroneous. Instead of considering the prima facie case, the

High Court has appreciated and weighed the material on record for coming to the conclusion that charge against accused could not have been

framed. In the case of P. Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala & Anr. (Supra), the Supreme Court has observed that at the stage of Section 227, the

judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In other words,

the sufficiency of ground would take within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the police or the documents produced before the Court

which ex facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to frame a charge against him. If the judge comes to the

conclusion that there is sufficient ground to proceed, he will frame charge under Section 228 of Cr.P.C., if not, he will discharge the accused. In the

case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Salman Khan (Supra), the Supreme Court held that although it was open to the High Court to entertain a petition

under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash charges framed against the accused, the same cannot be done by weighing correctness or sufficiency of

evidence. The principle to be adopted by the High Court in such cases should be that if the entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be

believed, would it constitute an offence or not. The truthfulness, the sufficiency and acceptability of the evidence can be adjudged at the stage of trial.

In the case of Indu Jain Vs. State of MP & Ors. (Supra), the Court has prescribed limitations on the Courts at the stage of framing charge. It is

observed that at the time of framing of charge, the Court is not required to go into details of investigation but only to arrive at the prima facie finding

on the materials made available as to whether a charge can be sustained as recommended in the charge sheet. Holding of a mini trial at the time of

framing of charge is deprecated. Various circumstances can only be considered during a proper trial and not on the basis of surmises at the time of

framing of charge where on the strength of the charge sheet only a prima facie satisfaction about the commission of an offence has to be arrived at

by trial Court. In another decision relied upon by the learned APP in the case of Anjani Kumar Choudhari Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (Supra) the

Apex Court has laid down the principles to determine the applicability of Section 307 of IPC. It is observed that in order to attract Section 307 of

IPC, injury need not be on vital part of the body. When several persons attack an unarmed person with deadly weapons, it is reasonable to presume

that they had knowledge or intention that such an attack would result in death. The question as to whether there is intention to kill or knowledge that

death will be caused is a question of fact and would depend on facts of the given case which has to be attributed on evidence by trial Court. In the

case of Ratan Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. (Supra), it was observed by the Apex Court that the accused cannot be acquitted merely

because the injuries inflicted on the victim were in the nature of a simple hurt. The determining question is intention or knowledge, as the case may be

and not the nature of injuries. In the case of Vineet Mahajan Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (Supra), the Supreme Court has reiterated similar principles.

In the said case, the High Court has deleted the charge framed under Section 307 of IPC as unsustainable in revision filed by the accused. It was held

that a question as to whether there was intention to kill or knowledge that death will be caused, is a question of fact of a given case which has to be

attributed on evidence by the trial Court.

11 Analyzing all the above principles enunciated hitherto and applying the same to the factual aspects of the present case, there is definite conclusion

that prima facie case is made out against the applicant to proceed against him. The statements of the witnesses indicate the involvement of the

applicant whether there was an intention or knowledge can be inferred from the nature of injuries, nature of weapons used and the manner in which

the injured was attached. All these factors can be appreciated at the time of trial. The statements of witnesses, prima facie, show complicity of the

applicant in the said crime. The submission of learned advocate for the applicant cannot be appreciated at this stage. In the circumstances, I find no

merits in this application. The Sessions Court has rightly rejected the application for discharge and, there is no reason to reverse the said decision.

12 Hence, I pass the following order:

(i) Criminal Revision Application stands dismissed;

(ii) It is clarified that the observations made in this order are only considering the relief sought in this application and the trial Court shall not be inflicted

by the same at the time of trial;

(iii) At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submits that there was interim order is continuing in favour of the applicant since 2016, and, the

applicant intends to challenge this order before the Apex Court and hence interim stay may be extended for a period of six weeks. Considering the

fact that the proceedings, as against the applicant were stayed and the interim relief was in operation since 2016, the same shall continue for a further

period of six weeks from today.