Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. The records reveal that none of the eyewitnesses or the injured have stated the name of the accused No.13 as Ajit Chawan was also participated in the crime. The FIR was registered against only accused Nos.1 to 5 and other unknown persons. Thereafter, after arresting some of the accused persons, they named various accused persons including the name of one Ajit Chavan as co-accused. The voluntary statements of all the co-accused reveals that one Ajit Chavan was participated in the offence and none of the accused persons have despaired anything about the name of the petitioner Ajit Chavan was also called as Ajay Gayakwad. Nowhere, it is found that Ajay Gayakwad was also called as Ajit Chavan. Even in the charge sheet, the police have shown the name of the A-13 as Ajit Chavan. Subsequently, the police able to trace the petitioner and obtained voluntary statement, and NC: 2024:KHC-K:6253 stated that he is the same person Ajit Chavan @ Ajay Gayakwad. There is no identification parade conducted in order to show that the petitioner, is either of Ajit Chavan or Ajay Gayakwad, but, no such exercise is made by the investigation officer. On the other hand, he said to be recorded the voluntary statement of the petitioner and named as Ajit @ Ajay Chavan @ Gayakwad. It is fairly admitted by the learned High Court Government Pleader that surname Chavan is altogether different from the surname Gayakwad. One group of person cannot be having two surnames like Chavan and Gayakwad. The names can be made as Ajit @ Ajay, but both the surnames cannot be in one name. Neither the injured persons nor the witnesses or the voluntary statement of the co-accused have stated the name of the petitioner as Ajit @ Ajay Chavan @ Gayakwad. Such being the case, merely police apprehended the petitioner and filed the charge sheet and closed investigation by showing the name as is not correct. The petitioner has also produced various documents like the caste certificate birth certificate, PAN card, Aadhaar card, voter ID, etc. Almost 23 documents have been produced to show that he is Ajay Gayakwad, but none of the documents reveals that he is NC: 2024:KHC-K:6253 also Ajit Chavan. Such being the case, conducting the trial against the petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of law. The trial Court could have properly appreciated the documents on record and could have discharged the petitioner, but committed error in dismissing the application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, conducting the proceedings against the petitioner is liable to be quashed.