* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 377 OF 2009 Vinod @ Tatya Vishnu Babras ...Applicant/Orig. Accused no.9 V/s. The State of Maharashtra .....Respondent ========= Mr.Rahul S.Kate, adv.for applicant. Mr.Y.S.Shinde, APP for State. CORAM: SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED: 29TH JULY, 2009. P.C. :- 1. Heard counsels for both sides. 2. This Revision Application arises out of rejection of an application for discharge filed by the applicant, who is accused No.9 in Sessions Case No.100 of 2007 filed for the offences punishable under Section 302, 307, 143, 147, 148, 149, 120(B), 201, 109, 504, 506 IPC , Section 135 of Bombay Police Act Section 5 and (25) of Arms Act. 3. It is the prosecution’s case that on 26 th November 2006, the complainant-Amit Rode, injured-Nitin Sawale and deceased Sonya @ * 2 * Amol Sontake were assaulted with swords. The applicant is alleged to have provided the swords to his co-accused who committed the actual assault. Undisputedly, the only material on record against the applicant to connect him to the alleged incident is the statement of co-accused Atul Shette. He states that he had procured three swords from the applicant and an axe from Sachin Jadhav, another co-accused. The statement of co- accused cannot be used to bring home the case against the applicant. In any case, even the investigation conducted by the police on the basis of that statement is of no help to the prosecution. The police recorded statement of Rajendra Singh Chawla a resident of Nanded from whose shop the applicant is alleged to have purchased the swords. He does not categorically implicate the applicant. He stated that he cannot say that whether the swords were purchased by the applicant. Further, the swords allegedly purchased by the applicant are blunt swords. It is thus seen that there is no material whatsoever before the court to implicate the applicant in the incident alleged. Therefore, the Revision Application deserves to be allowed. The impugned order dated 6th April, 2009 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati below Exhibit-1 in Sessions Case No.100 of 2007 rejecting the application of the applicant at Exhibit-30 for discharge under Section 227 CrPC, is hereby * 3 * quashed and set aside. The application for discharge filed by the applicant at Exhibit-30 under Section 227 CrPC is hereby allowed and the applicant is discharged from the proceedings in Sessions Case No.100 of 2007 pending in Sessions Court, Baramati in connection with offence registered vide C.R.No.185 of 2006 of Indapur Police Station. [SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA,J]