By the aforesaid order, the High Court has set aside the order dated 21.02.2012 passed by the court below vide which application filed by the Respondent nos.1 and 2 for discharge, was dismissed. In support of the arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra and Anr. He further submitted that Trial Court had failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it to discharge the respondent no. The learned counsel for the State having no explanation therefor sought to argue that the impugned order cannot be legally sustained as at the stage of consideration of application for discharge, appreciation of the evidence as such was not possible as the same could be only after the evidence is recorded in the Court after trial. 1 and 2) and Zaanish Khan stating therein that while Respondent no.1 was staying in Dubai for the purpose of his business, his wife respondent no.2 came in contact with the deceased and developed friendship. The High Court vide impugned order had set aside the order passed by the Trial Court and discharged Respondent Nos.
It is observed that in other words, the sufficiency of grounds 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.
State, 2017 SCC OnLine Kar 4970] ought to have been cognizant of the fact that the trial court was dealing with an application for discharge under the provisions of Section 239 CrPC.
It is a settled principle of law that at the stage of considering an application for discharge the court must proceed on the assumption that the material which has been brought on the record by the prosecution is true and evaluate the material in order to determine whether the facts emerging from the material, taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary to constitute the offence.
Suresh Thapa, in his statement on 14.5.2006, refers that in the late night he was sitting of a platform at site, at such time a car came to drop deceased and thereafter the deceased went with his gardener Hari to his house. In third statement dated 11.12.2006, Suresh Thapa changed his earlier version and stated that a silver colour car came to the gate of the society and driver honked, the deceased came out of his bungalow, he opened the door, the deceased closed the door and he then went towards bungalow no.5 and while returning, the car was standing near his bungalow, the driver went ahead to the deceased, however they had no communication.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/criminal/legal-analysis-of-judgement-on-discharge-in-a-murder-case/
Ajitsingh in his statement dated 31.12.2006 refers to his visit to the deceased and also with the deceased to the house of accused nos.
Manjitsingh refers to a communication he had with accused no.1 in past, wherein accused no.1 allegedly conveyed him the deceased wanted to purchase everything, if time permits he will also purchase his wife.
Besides that, the Investigating Agency had recorded the statements of Hiraman Dyaneshwar Chaudhari, Ramesh Murlidhar, Mohan Vs., Ashok Gunaji Thosar, Mehboob Dastagi Sheikh, and Rakma Shivram Waghmare, which have not been referred to and considered by the High Court while discharging Respondent Nos.
The report of the test conducted on Respondent No.1, the opinion furnished by the Directorate of Forensic Sciences Laboratory, Home Department, Maharashtra, shows the involvement of Respondent No.1 in the murder of Captain Manmohan Singh.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/criminal/protection-of-public-servants-in-criminal-proceedings/
With regard to Ashok Gajraj Chaudary, even though he denied having any knowledge about the murder, yet his Polygraph examination revealed about the murder, yet his Polygraph examination revealed his attempts to deceive on questions related to him hiding information related to the death of Capt.
Case Title: CAPTAIN MANJIT SINGH VIRDI (RETD.) Vs. HUSSAIN MOHAMMED SHATTAF (2023 INSC 555)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001399-001399 / 2023
