Madhya Pradesh High Court
Abhishek Hardia vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 August, 2019
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE
M.Cr.C No.10240/2018
(Abhishek Hardia Vs. State of M.P.)
-1-
Indore, Dt. 20.08.2019
Shri Anurag Baijal, counsel for the applicant.
Shri Lokesh Bhargava, counsel for the
respondent/State.
This is a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. whereby the petitioner wants to invoke the inherent powers of this Court for quashing the supplementary chargesheet filed against him under section 304 IPC.
2. Case of the prosecution is that on the day of Nagpanchami,the snake charmer, Prakash who was allegedly carrying some snakes along with his two sons on motorcycle was stopped by two motorcyclists and when he did not stop, they tried to snatch his bag on the running motorcycle, which made the motorcycle of snake charmer disbalanced. He fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries, which resulted in his death. After receiving the information, police registered the case against Aniket and Ajay, investigated the same and filed chargesheet on 28.3.2017 without reserving any right for further investigation.
3. The incident was reported to the police and was registered at crime No.127/2017 at Police Station Malharganj, Indore. The police started investigation and filed charge-sheet against Aniket and Ajay. The Government also ordered Magisterial enquiry and assigned the same to the SDO, Malharganj who submitted its report on 18.4.2017. After enquiry, learned SDM concluded that Aniket and Ajay pushed the motorcycle of the deceased, they beat him and HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C No.10240/2018 (Abhishek Hardia Vs. State of M.P.) -1- tried to snatch his bag, thereafter the present applicant Abhishek also reached on the spot and gave a kick on his chest. Snake charmer, Prakash fell down on the spot and died. After receiving this enquiry report, the police again investigated the case and filed supplementary chargesheet on 9.9.2017 against the applicant and trial court has framed the charges against him under section 304 IPC.
4. During investigation, the police found two eye witnesses of the incident, Dinesh and Sanjay. Police recorded their statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. on 31.8.2016 and on 29.3.2017 but on both the occasions, they did not name the applicant as an offender. SDM himself recorded the statement of both these eye witnesses. They did not name the applicant, but surprisingly it is mentioned in para Nos. 2 and 5 of the report of the SDM that there was some scuffle between snake charmer, Aniket and Ajay. Abhishek also came on spot and kicked on the chest of the deceased, resulting in his death. How the SDM got the information about the name of the applicant-Abhishek is not clear from the report. Learned SDM has duly recorded the statement of about 10 witnesses but none of them has named the applicant-Abhishek as assailant. After receiving the report of SDM, police again recorded the statement of Dinesh and Sanjay on 28.8.2017. In this fourth statement, for the first time Sanjay named the present applicant stating that he came on another motorcycle and tried to snatch the bag from the snake charmer, but according to him at the same time two HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C No.10240/2018 (Abhishek Hardia Vs. State of M.P.) -1- police personnel also reached on the spot and they intervened and separated the persons embroiled in the fight. Though he named Abhishek but not alleged that he kicked the deceased. Here also Dinesh did not name the present applicant. This is the only basis for filing chargesheet against the applicant but no explanation is given by the prosecution even after obtaining several opportunities as to what are the grounds except stated hereinabove, to implead the present applicant not named by the witness Sanju thrice and not named by the other eye witness Dinesh in any of his four statements. Admittedly, the applicant was not known to the witnesses and no Test Identification Parade (T.I.P.) was conducted during investigation.
5. If the total evidence is that which is discussed hereinabove, then the method and manner adopted by the investigating agency in this case becomes suspicious and such negligent attitude is certainly not appreciable. The prosecution has come with two eye witnesses Sanjay and Dinesh and as stated above, they have never named the applicant. How the SDM came to know the name of the applicant is not clear from its report and how and on what basis the supplementary chargesheet is filed is not clear from the supplementary chargesheet itself. Even at the fourth occasion, Sanjay has only stated that Abhishek reached on the spot and he was trying to snatch the bag from the snake charmer. No other allegation is made against him, therefore filing of the chargesheet against him is nothing but sheer HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C No.10240/2018 (Abhishek Hardia Vs. State of M.P.) -1- abuse of process of law which deserves to be corrected by this Court.
6. Therefore, the present petition is allowed. Charge under section 304 IPC framed against the applicant-Abhishek is set aside and he is discharged from the charge u/s 304 IPC.
His bail bonds stand discharged.
With the aforesaid, the petition is allowed and disposed of.
(Virender Singh) Judge mk MUKTA KAUSHAL 2019.08.22 14:42:07 +05'30'