IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2299 OF 2000 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2299 OF 2000 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2299 OF 2000 Gope Bahrani ..Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent With With With CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2300 OF 2000 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2300 OF 2000 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2300 OF 2000 Thakur Varialdas Bahrani ..Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent With With With CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2301 OF 2000 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2301 OF 2000 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2301 OF 2000 Godhu Narayandas Kishnani ..Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent With With With CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2302 OF 2000 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2302 OF 2000 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2302 OF 2000 Vasu Narayandas Kishnani ..Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Shri S.R.Chitnis, Sr. Counsel with Mr. Subhash Jha i/b. M/s. Law Global for the applicant Mrs.Shinde APP for the State CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 2nd May, 2008. DATED : 2nd May, 2008. DATED : 2nd May, 2008. JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: 1. These four applications can be disposed of -2- by a common Order as the point involved therein is common. 2. This Court is now informed that Sessions Case No.233 of 1996 with Sessions Case No.279 of 1996 are presently pending in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, at Kalyan. The Order impugned in this applications is common in as much as the said Order is passed by the 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Thane, hereinafter referred to as the learned Trial Judge, on 17th June, 2000. 3. On 8th April, 1989 one Mr. Dunichand Kalani was murdered at the hands of certain persons at Ulhasnagar. Mr. Narayan B. Kalani filed an FIR at Ulhasnagar Police Station. It was treated as Crime Report and C.R.No.296 of 1989 came to be registered at Ulhasnagar Police Station in connection with the incident concerning the death of said deceased. 4. In the course of investigation aforesaid applicants came to be charged under Section 120B, 147, 148, 149 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code r/w. Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and accordingly -3- they came to be arrested. After committal of the case to the Court of learned Trial Judge, the applicant in application No.2302 of 2008 by name Mr. Vasu filed application for discharge at Exhibit 62 as per the provisions of Section 227 of Cr.P.C. Godhu, applicant in Application No.2301 of 2000 filed similar application at Exhibit 63. Similar application came to be filed at Exhibit 64 by Thakur V. Behrani applicant in Application No.2300 of 2000. Applicant in Application No.2299 of 2000 i.e. Gope Behrani filed application for discharge at Ex.108. 5. The aforesaid three applications at Exhibit 62 to Exhibit 64 were filed before framing of the charge by the learned trial Judge, whereas the application at Exhibit 108 was filed after the framing of the charge by the learned Trial Judge. In the impugned Order dated 17.6.2000 there is reference to certain misgivings as regards not prosecuting the applications at Exhibit 62 to Exhibit 64 by the respective applicants. The learned trial Judge has mentioned about the said misgivings and has thereafter decided the said application at Exhibit 62 to Exhibit 64 on merits -4- and has rejected the same. Application at Exhibit 108 filed by Gope Bahrani was considered by the learned trial Judge in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Baburao Hari Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra 1987 Criminal Law Journal 584 and that the learned trial Judge has dismissed the said application at Exhibit 108 and that is how the impugned Order dated 17th June, 2000 which is common so far as all the applications mentioned above, came to be passed and that is how the four applications aforesaid have been filed. 6. With the assistance of learned Senior Counsel Mr. S.R.Chitnis and Ms. Shinde I have perused the record as well as the order impugned. Statement of Girdhari P. Pabnani, Statement of Anilkumar N. Kapoor and the panchanama at the instance of the co-accused Pandharinath pointing out the place of Gope Bahrani was the material which was pressed in service against the applicants for the purpose of claiming that prima facie case is made out against all the applicants to charge them for the relevant offences for which they have been arrested. In so far as the said panchanama at instance of Pandharinath,it is required to be noted -5- that by the said panchanama said Pandharinath had pointed out the place of Gope Bahrani. In my view, nowhere the present applicants have disputed about the said place which is said to have been pointed out by the co-accused Pandharinath and in any case pointing out the place of Gope Baharani by itself would not be the material relevant for the purpose of deciding whether the prima facie case is made out against any of the applicants. 7. Then comes the material in the nature of two statements namely statement of Girdhari P. Pabnani and statement of Anilkumar N. Kapoor. Learned Senior Counsel Mr.S.R.Chitnis had taken me through these two statements and had submitted that even if these two statements are read as it is they by themselves do not indicate that the present applicants were party as regards hatching of conspiracy as regards the murder of said Dunichand Kalani, namely the deceased. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Chitnis had submitted that if the statements are read as it is, they go to show that Gope Bahrani and Ghanshyam Bhatija are said to have uttered certain words which do not go to show that the conspiracy was hatched so as to cause death of -6- Dunichand Kalani. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. S.R. Chitnis submitted that at the most these persons may have entertained a wish as regards Dunichand Kalani, but that by itself would not be sufficient to rope the applicants in charge under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 8. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Chitnis had submitted that the utterances of Gope Behrani and Ghanshyam are required to be viewed as a loud expression of thought of the respective persons and except the utterances said to have been made before certain persons nothing further is made out by the prosecution to show that after the respective utterances some overt act was committed either by Gope Bahrani or by Ghanshyam or anybody else who was present in the said meeting including the present applicants. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. S.R.Chitnis had relied upon the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Prafullakumar Samel and another and had drawn my attention to paragraph 10 of the said judgment and had submitted that the case put up by the prosecution so far as the present applicants are concerned, nowhere falls within the parameters -7- which are set out in paragraph 10. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Chitnis submitted that no suspicion, much less some suspicion could arise on the basis of the facts alleged through the statement of Girdhari or Anil Kumar as regards the hatching of conspiracy by the various applicants. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. S.R.Chitnis further pointed out that two persons namely Girdhari and Anilkumar will have to be styled as chance witnesses and therefore their words will have to be read as it is and appropriate inference will have to be drawn. 9. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. S.R.Chitnis had relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State vs. Nalini and others reported State vs. Nalini and others reported State vs. Nalini and others reported in 1999 SCC (Criminal) 691 in 1999 SCC (Criminal) 691 in 1999 SCC (Criminal) 691 and had taken me through the paragraphs 583 onwards where the Supreme Court has indicated the principles which have to be applied while deciding the case of the prosecution as regards the allegations of conspiracy against a particular person in a particular case. Learned Senior Counsel Mr.S.R.Chitnis has drawn my attention to the portion of clause (1) appearing in para 583 which is as under: -8- "The question for consideration in a case is did all the accused have the intention and did they agree that the crime be committed. It would not be enough for the offence of conspiracy when some of the accused merely entertained a wish, however horrendous it may be, that offence be committed." Learned Senior Counsel Mr.S.R.Chitnis submitted that so far as the applicants, namely Mr. Thakur, Mr. Godhu and Mr. Vasu, they were mere spectators and they may have listened to what Gope Bahrani said in the meeting to which the reference is made by Girdhari and there is no overt act alleged against these three persons so as to suggest that they did something to cause the death of Dunichand. In so far as Gope Bahrani is concerned, the learned Senior Counsel S.R.Chitnis submitted that Girdhari alleges that Gope Behrani uttered the words "__________________________" According to the learned Senior Counsel Mr. S.R.Chitnis, in the first place the words "___________________________" would not go to show that Gope Bahrani entertained the desire to kill said Dunichand. He alternatively submitted that relying upon the observations of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Nalini which are mentioned above, at the most Gope Bahrani may said to have entertained a -9- wish as regards Dunichand Kalani and nothing beyond that and that by itself cannot constitute an offence. 10. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Chitnis had commented about alleged utterances by Ghanshyam and had submitted that the words appearing in the statement of Anil, namely "_______________________________" would not go to show that the persons present in the said alleged meeting on 2.4.1989 wanted to kill Dunichand. He had submitted that the words "_______________________" would not by stretch of imagination go to show that Ghanshaym desired to kill Dunichand and plan to that effect was placed before the persons who were present at the said meeting. 11. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. S.R.Chitnis submitted that reading the statements of Girdhari as well as Anil as it is, there is nothing specific to come to the conclusion that there was meeting of minds so far as all the persons who were present on the two occasions namely once at the residence of Gope Bahrani and on the second occasion at the -10- hotel of Ghanshyam. Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Chitnis submitted that the material placed before the Court through the statement of Girdhari and Anil Kumar is insufficient to come to the conclusion that the prosecution made out a prima facie case for holding that the applicants herein had hatched a conspiracy to cause death of Dunichand Kalani. 12. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. S.R.Chitnis submitted that the learned trial Judge erred in appreciating the statements of Girdhari and Anilkumar and that the learned trial Judge erred in ultimately coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has made out a case against the present applicant to say that the present applicants had hatched conspiracy to cause death of Dunichand Kalani. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. Chitnis submitted that though the judgment in the case of Prafulla Kumar Samal as well as Nalini were placed before the learned trial Judge for his consideration, the learned trial Judge failed to appreciate them, and in fact did not follow them in the proper perspective for the purposes of holding in favour of the applicants. Learned Senior -11- Counsel Mr. Chitnis submitted that the impugned judgment dated 17th June, 2000 requires interference at the hands of this Court and this court should hold that each of the applicant has made out a case for discharge and that each of the applicant ought to be discharged by this Court. 13. Learned Advocate Ms. Shinde appearing on behalf of the State tried to justify the observations of the learned trial Judge and had submitted that the learned trial Judge rightly appreciated the statement of Girdhari and Anil Kumar to hold that prima facie case for holding that the applicants had hatched conspiracy to cause the death of Dunichand was rightly arrived at. Ms. Shinde therefore submitted that the judgment in the case of Prafulla Kumar and Nalini were rightly appreciated by the learned trial Judge and the impugned Order was passed accordingly. She pressed for dismissal of these applications. 14. I have considered the rival submissions. The arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel Mr.Chitnis are required to be accepted in so far as the present applications are concerned. -12- The applicants, namely Thakur, Godhu and Vasu are the persons who were said to be persons in the meeting which are referred to in the statement of Gidhari and Anil Kumar. These three persons appear to have acted as listeners and there is no overt act alleged against these persons except being present in the said two meetings and heard what is being said by Gope Bahrani or Ghanshyam. These three persons will have to be treated as silent spectators and therefore there is no meeting of mind so far as these three persons with Gope Bahranai and/or Ghanshyam. Except the statement of Girdhari and Anil Kumar no material is placed before the Court as to what was the conduct of these three persons prior to the said two meetings or after the said two meetings, so as to show that these three persons had done something in excess of attending those two meetings to come to the conclusion that they had participated in hatching the conspiracy to cause death of Dunichand Kalani. These three persons had never joined hands or expressed their willingness to affirm the utterance which are said to have been made by Gope Bahrani or Ghanshyam and that is how the utterances of Gope Bahrani and Ghanshyuam can not implicate these -13- three persons. 15. Then comes the case of Gope Bahrani. Gope Bahrani is said to have uttered the words "_______ __________________" . If these words are to be interpreted and understood in the context by themselves, at the most it can be treated as a wish on the part of Gope Bahrani. To express such a wish or entertain such a wish by itself would not amount to an offence of conspiracy as is observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Nalini by using the following words " it would not be enough for the offence of conspiracy when some of the accused merely entertained a wish howsoever horrendous it may be, that offence be committed." Apart from this except so called utterances through the mind of Gope Bahrani "____________________________" no overt act is shown to have been done by Gope Bahrani towards fulfilling the final event, namely the death of Dunichand Kalani. This Gope Bahrani is said to be present in the company of Ghanshyam on 2nd April, 1989 in the hotel of Ghanshyam. This is as per the statement of Anil Kumar. As per the statement of Anil Kumar, Gope Bahrani is silent spectator in the said meetings and he is at the -14- most said to have heard Ghanshyam uttering the words "_____________________________". In the first place the words" _________ __________________" would not go to show that Ghanshyam entertained the idea of causing death of Dunichand Kalani. If Gope Bahrani desired to cause death of Dunichand Kalani he would have said something to the various persons on 2nd April, 1989. In the statement of Anil Kumar except Ghanshyam uttering the words "____________________________" nothing specific happened so as to show that all of them including Gope Bahrani entertained the idea to cause death of Dunichand and subscribe to it by some overt act. 16. The prosecution has relied upon the two utterances of the two speakers namely "____________________________" and "_________ ________________________". These utterances by themselves would not go to show that the persons who uttered the said words arrived at a desire that Dunichand Kalani should be killed. If these two meetings were to be the basis for the ultimate -15- desire to cause death of Dunichand Kalani the persons who were present in the said meeting would have done some overt act and participated in the final act of causing death of Dunichand Kalani. It would be difficult to accept the submissions of learned Advocate Ms. Shinde that participation of the present applicants as well as utterances quoted above would tantamount to hatching of conspiracy to cause death of Dunichand Kalani. 17. The main requirement of meeting of mind by the so called conspirators so as to say that prima facie case for the charges under Section 120B is made out is totally absent. The judgment in the case of Nalini clearly indicates that in order to allege conspiracy against certain persons, meeting of minds by the persons who are said to be conspirators is required to be made out. In the present case the material which is placed before the Court through the statement of Girdhari and Anil Kumar cannot be construed to say that there was meeting of minds between the persons who were present in the said meeting as also the persons who uttered the utterances so as to say that all of them had desire to cause death of Dunichand Kalani. -16- 18. In view of the aforesaid discussion I hold that the prosecution has failed to make out a prima facie case that the applicants aforesaid were concerned in the hatching of conspiracy so as to cause death of Dunichand Kalani. 19. The learned trial Judge gave weightage to the evidence of Girdhari as well as Anil Kumar and came to the conclusion that the case of conspiracy is made out, despite the law which was cited before him through the judgment of Prafulla Kumar Samel as well as the judgement of Nalini which is clear on all points. The learned trial Judge failed to draw the distinction between the term suspicion, some suspicion and grave suspicion. In the present case, in my view not even suspicion can be raised against the present applicants, much less some suspicion and never a grave suspicion. In my view, the learned trial Judge failed to appreciate the purport of the two statements and the effect thereof, particularly because except the two statements there was no other material coming forth to show that the applicants above named had done something so as to show that they entertained the -17- idea to cause death of Dunichand Kalani. 20. For the reasons mentioned above, I am inclined to observe that each of the applicant has made out a case for grant of discharge application filed by him before the learned trial Judge and to that extent the impugned Order dated 17th June, 2000 rejecting the respective discharge applications is required to be set aside and each of the applicant aforesaid is required to be discharged from the Sessions Case Nos. 279 of 1996 and Sessions case No.233 of 1996. 21. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, I pass the following order: ORDER . Application for discharge at Exhibit 62 filed by the applicant in Criminal Application No.2302 of 2000, application at Exhibit 63 filed by applicant in application No.2301 of 2000, application at Exhibit 64 filed by the applicant in Criminal Application No.2300 of 2000 and application at Exhibit 108 filed by the applicant -18- in Criminal Application No.2299 of 2000 is granted. To that extent the impugned Order dated 17th June, 2000 passed by the 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Thane is set aside. . Each of the aforesaid applicants stand discharged from the Sessions Case No.233 of 1996 with Sessions Case No.279 of 1996. . Bail bonds of the applicants stand cancelled. (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.)