LexYOGESH @ SACHIN JAGDISH JOSHI versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2008] 6 S.C.R 1116 YOGESH @ SACHIN JAGDISH JOSHI v STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (Criminal Appeal Nos.744 of 2008) APRIL 28, 2008 [S.B. SINHA AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860- ss. 302 rlw 1208 - Murder- Criminal conspiracy-Allegation that Appellant and his family members, c one of their employees and a friend hatched a criminal conspiracy to murder complainant's son as he was to get married to another girl after an affair and alleged marriage with Appellant's sister - Case based on circumstantial evidence, namely, threatening calls from the side of accused 0 to complainant, his family and earlier relationship between the deceased and Appellant's sister - Prayer of Appellant for discharge - Tenability of - Held: On facts, tenable - Mother and sister of the appellant along with two other accused having been discharged by High Court and SLP preferred by State E against the same having been dismissed, and, similarly, father of appellant, stated to be the mastermind behind the entire conspiracy, having been discharged by Sessions Judge, on same set of circumstances and accusations, no sufficient ground survived to proceed against the Appellant - Code of F G H Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.227. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.227 - Powers under, of Trial Court - Scope and ambit of - Discussed. Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 120A and 1208 - Offence of criminal conspiracy -Essential features of - Discussed. According to the prosecution, Appellant and his family members, one of their employees and a friend hatched a criminal conspiracy to murder the complainant's son as he was to get married to another 1116 ,~ . YOGESH @ SACHIN JAGDISH JOSHI v. STATE OF 1117 ' .... MAHARASHTRA girl after an affair and alleged marriage with Appellant's A sister. It is alleged that in pursuance of such conspiracy the complainant' son was done to death. The case of the prosecution was based on the circumstantial evidence, namely, threatening calls from the side of the accused to the complainant, his family and the earlier relationship B between the deceased and Appellant's sister. Charge-sheet was filed against the appellant before the Juvenile Court, he being below 18 years of age, and against fifteen other persons, which included his father c (A-1 ), mother (A-2), sister (A-4), a family friend (A-11) and manager of his father (A-12). Appellant and accused A-1, A-2, A-4 to A-6, A-11 and A-12 were prosecuted for offences under s.302 and 120B, IPC whereas A-7 to A-10 and A-13 to A-16, were prosecuted for offences under s.302 read with s.120B and under the Arms Act. D " Appellant filed application for discharge before the Juvenile Justice Board, under s.227,. CrPC. The application was rejected. Being aggrieved, Appellant preferred appeal before the Sessions Judge, but the same E was dismissed. Thereafter, Appellant moved revision application before High Court which too was dismissed. A-2, A-4, A-11 and A-12 had also moved applications under s.227, CrPC before the Sessions Judge for discharge, which were dismissed. They filed writ petitions F which were allowed by High Court and all the said four accused were accordingly discharged. Appellant filed writ Petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution r/w s.482 CrPC pleading that by reason of parity, he was also entitled to be discharged. That petition was dismissed. G Subsequently, Special Leave Petition, preferred by ~ the State against order of the High Court discharging accused Nos.2: 4, 11 & 12, was dismissed and A-1, father of the appellant, filed an application before the Sessions Judge for discharge from all the charges, which was H 1118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 6 S.C.R. A allowed. The question which arose for consideration in the present appeal is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case there was no sufficient ground to proceed against the appellant for the offences alleged and he was 8 entitled to be discharged. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. S.227, Cr PC contemplates the circumstances whereunder there could be a discharge C of an accused at a stage anterior in point of time to framing of charge under s.228. It provides that upon consideration of the record of the case, the documents submitted with the police report and after hearing the accused and the prosecution, the Court is expected, nay bound to decide D whether there is "sufficient ground" to proceed against the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.