Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. Per contra, Mr. J.M. Panchal, learned advocate  HC-NIC Page 9 of 22 Created On Thu Apr 28 00:16:16 IST 2016 R/CR.MA/4481/2016 JUDGMENT with   Ms.   Subhadra   Patel,   learned   advocate   for  respondent No.2 has opposed the application and  has   submitted   that   the   learned   Judge   has  rightly   considered   the   facts   of   the   case   and  the   role   attributed   and   the   most   important  factor which has weighed with the learned Judge  is   that   the   investigation   is   over   and   that  there are four different versions given by the  applicant   who   is   alleged   to   be   the   sole   eye­ witness.   It   is   pointed   out   that   the   FIR   is  lodged   on   29.6.2015,   wherein   Raghu   Govind  Dangar   and   respondent   No.2   are   shown   to   be  having sword.  In  the statement which is given  on   29.6.2015,   again,   the   different   version   is  given,   wherein   the   complainant   has   said   that  Raghu   Govind   Dangar   was   armed   with   knife   and  respondent No.2 with sword. On 1.7.2015, again  a   different   version   is   given   and   it   is   said  that   something   like   knife   was   there   with  respondent No.2 and that his uncle was hold by  about   7­8   persons.   It   is   submitted   that   even  alleged  role of the  accused have been  changed  HC-NIC Page 10 of 22 Created On Thu Apr 28 00:16:16 IST 2016 R/CR.MA/4481/2016 JUDGMENT and thus, different  versions  are given by the  sole   eye­witness   who   is   the   complainant   also.  Referring   to   the   FSL   report   and   the   charge­ sheet papers,  it  is  submitted that  though the  sword   is   recovered,   no   blood   stain   marks   are  found.   Similarly,   though   knife   is   recovered  from accused - Raghu Govind Dangar, human blood  "O" positive is found which is also the blood  group   of   the   other   accused   also.   It   is  submitted that as such it is a blind murder and  no   one   has   seen   and   because   of   personal   and  political   rivalry,   the   whole   family   including  father,   son   and   brothers   have   been   wrongly  roped in the present offence. It is contended  that different versions have been given only to  suit   the   medical   evidence.   It   is   further  submitted   that   the   same   is   further   bifurcated  by   changing   stand   that   the   accused   gave   blow  with   knife   and   wooden   plank   only   in   order   to  match with the medical evidence. It is further  submitted   that   there   is   totally   inconsistent  story   given   in   different   versions   by   the  HC-NIC Page 11 of 22 Created On Thu Apr 28 00:16:16 IST 2016 R/CR.MA/4481/2016 JUDGMENT applicant   ­   complainant   only   in   order   to  wrongly   rope   in   the   whole   family   with   an  attempt to fix certain persons.

11. Considering the submissions made by the learned  advocates appearing for the respective parties  as well as on perusal of the FIR, police papers  HC-NIC Page 13 of 22 Created On Thu Apr 28 00:16:16 IST 2016 R/CR.MA/4481/2016 JUDGMENT and   the   papers   of   the   charge­sheet   which   are  made available by the learned Additional Public  Prosecutor,   it   is   no   doubt   true   that   the  applicant   ­   original   complainant   is   the   sole  eye­witness.   Charge­sheet   papers   clearly  indicate   that   the   FIR   came   to   be   lodged   on  29.6.2015,   wherein   Raghu   Govind   Dangar   and  respondent   No.2   were   shown   to   be   armed   with  sword.   On   very   next   day   i.e.   29.6.2015,   the  applicant ­ complainant changed his version and  made further statement that the accused - Raghu  Govind Dangar  was armed with  knife. Again, on  1.7.2015, the another version is given, whereby  the   applicant   has   stated   that   Raghu   Govind  Dangar was  armed with weapon "like knife" and  even  respondent No.2 was armed with knife and  instead of 4 persons in the earlier version, 7  to 8  persons are  shown. The complainant being  the sole eye­witness, it appears that there is  an   improved   statement   to   lay   down   foundation  for the case against the accused.

12. In   facts   of   the   case   which   have   already   been  HC-NIC Page 14 of 22 Created On Thu Apr 28 00:16:16 IST 2016 R/CR.MA/4481/2016 JUDGMENT discussed hereinabove and considering the fact  that that sole eye­witness has given different  versions at different times and has attributed  different   weapons,   considering   the   aforesaid  position   and   on   perusal   of   the   charge­sheet  papers,   it   clearly   bornes   out   that   there   is  material   change   of   version   in   the   sole   eye­ witness   and   the   learned   Sessions   Judge   has  therefore   rightly   exercised   the   discretion   in  favour of respondent No.2. It is not the case  of   the   applicant   that   after   the   bail   was  granted to respondent No.2, there is any breach  of   condition   by   respondent   No.2.   Considering  the   prima   face   case   therefore,   learned  Additional   Sessions   Judge   has   rightly   relied  upon the judgment of this Court in the case of  Dr. (Mrs.) Nitaben Abhaybhai Mehta (supra).

16. In   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   case  therefore,  it  cannot be said  that the  learned  Sessions   Judge   has   erroneously   exercised   the  jurisdiction   in   favour   of   respondent   No.2   and  HC-NIC Page 19 of 22 Created On Thu Apr 28 00:16:16 IST 2016 R/CR.MA/4481/2016 JUDGMENT it is not a fit case for cancellation of bail  as prayed for. This Court is conscious of the  fact that as the trial is still to take place,  it would not be appropriate for this Court to  appreciate   the   evidence   and   discuss   it   any  further though it is an admitted position that  the   deceased   has   succumbed   to   the   injuries  which are serious in nature. The fact is that  the complainant - sole eye­witness has changed  his version and different role is attributed to  respondent  No.2 though  it  is  found  that while  enlarging respondent No.2 on bail under Section  439   of   the   Code,   appropriate   conditions   are  imposed   by   the   learned   Sessions   Judge.   Even  while   dismissing   the   present   application   and  even   while   coming   to   the   conclusion   that   the  discretion is properly exercised by the learned  Additional Sessions Judge, Bhuj, over and above  the conditions which are imposed by the learned  Additional   Sessions   Judge,   the   following  additional condition is imposed upon respondent  No.2:­ HC-NIC Page 20 of 22 Created On Thu Apr 28 00:16:16 IST 2016 R/CR.MA/4481/2016 JUDGMENT "Respondent   No.2   shall   not   enter   the  limits of Bhuj Taluka till the trial  is   over,   except   for   attending   the  trial   and   shall   furnish   fresh  residential   address   to   the  Investigating Officer."