Dr. Gajendrasingh Narayanrao Patil vs The Central Bureau Of Investigation & Ors.

Heard learned Advocates for the applicants, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.1/Central Investigation Bureau (CBI), learned APP for respondent No.2 and learned Advocate for respondent No.3

Since both these matters arise out of the same impugned order dated 07/07/2014, they are disposed of by way of this common judgment. For the sake of discussion, the facts of Criminal Revision Application No.165/2014 are being considered.

The applicants are challenging the order dated 07/07/2014 below Exhibit 610 in Sessions Case No.8/2006, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Jalgaon. By the said impugned order, the applicants came to be summoned under Section 319(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for trial of offence punishable under Sections 302 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The facts leading to the passing of the aforesaid impugned order are as under :-

In 2005, Crime No.242/2005, came to be registered under Section 302, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against two unknown persons by the Jilha Peth Police Station Jalgaon. The said crime came to be investigated by the State CID, wherein charge-sheet No.194/2005 came to be filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalgaon initially against four accused persons, namely, accused No.1/Raju Pundalik Mali, accused No.2/Raju Chintaman Sonawane, accused No.3/Leeladhar Purushottam Narkhede and accused No.4/Damodar Jagannath Lokhande. The aforesaid case came to be assigned to the Sessions Court vide Session Case No.08/2006. Pursuant to subsequent developments, Criminal Writ Petition No.646/2005 came to be preferred before this Court, wherein the investigation of aforesaid crime came to be directed to be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) vide order dated 23/02/2007. During the aforesaid developments, accused No.1/Raju Pundalik Mali died in jail while in judicial custody on 06/04/2007. Thereafter, on investigation, CBI filed first supplementary charge-sheet on 10/06/2008 against accused Nos.1 and 2 with the additional evidence, seeking further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thereafter, on 06/10/2008, CBI again filed second supplementary charge-sheet against accused No.3/ Leeladhar Purushottam Narkhede and accused No.4/Damodar Jagannath Lokhande. It is admitted fact that the Trial Court separated the trial of accused No.2/Raju Chintaman Sonawane from that of accused Nos.3 and 4 vide order dated 12/03/2009. Learned Sessions Court proceeded further thereby framing charge on 15/10/2009 against accused No.2/Raju Chintaman Sonawane under Sections 302 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

During the course of evidence, almost 44 witnesses came to be examined. Respondent No.3 herein/Smt. Rajani Vishram Patil, who is informant, on 19/12/2013 had filed an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Vide the said application, she prayed for addition two names of Dr. Ulhas V. Patil and Dr. Gajendrasingh N. Patil (present applicants) as accused in the said crime. In pursuance of the said application, on 07/07/2014, the Trial Court allowed the said application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal procedure and summoned present applicants Dr. Gajendrasingh N. Patil (A-5) and Dr. Ulhas V. Patil (A-6). The said order dated 07/07/2014 is under challenge before this Court in these two revision applications.

This Court, vide orders dated 15/07/2014 and 18/07/2014 has already stayed the proceedings against Dr. Ulhas V. Patil (A-6) in Criminal Revision Application No.166/2014 and against Dr. Gajendrasingh N. Patil (A-5) in Criminal Revision Application No.165/2014, respectively. As the prosecution against accused No.2/Raju Sonawane was proceeded further, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Jalgaon, vide his judgment and order dated 15/11/2014 convicted him (Raju Sonawane) under Sections 302 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to life imprisonment. Said accused No.2/Raju Sonawane filed Criminal Appeal No.75/2015 before this Court challenging his conviction. This Court, vide judgment and order dated 17/02/2023 in Criminal Appeal No.75/2015, set aside the conviction dated 15/11/2014 and acquitted the said accused No.2/Raju Sonawane. It is the matter of fact on record that CBI had preferred Special Leave Petition (Cr.) Diary No(s). 36761/2023 against acquittal of accused No.2/Raju Sonawane before the Hon’ble Apex Court. However, the said Special Leave Petition came to be dismissed on 27/09/2023.

Thereafter, accused Nos.3/Leeladhar Purushottam Narkhede and accused No.4/Damodar Jagannath Lokhande filed Criminal Writ Petition No.848/2024 before this Court relying upon acquittal of accused. This Court in the said Criminal Writ Petition No.848/2024, vide the order dated 23/10/2024, quashed the proceedings against the said accused No.3/Leeladhar and accused No.4/Damodar, resulting their discharge from the case.

Now, trial is pending against newly added applicants i.e. accused No.5/Dr. Gajendrasingh N. Patil and accused No.6/Dr. Ulhas V. Patil, which is stayed by this Court pursuant to order dated 18/07/2014 and 15/07/2014, respectively.

Mr Ostwal and Mr Sangeet, learned Advocates for the applicants, in pursuant to the aforesaid developments, have vehemently submitted that the impugned order dated 07/07/2014 summoning the applicants is illegal. This Court, vide the order dated 15/07/2014, after directing conversion of Criminal Application No.3749/2014 (initially filed by the applicant) into Criminal Revision Application, observed that, in order to invoke the powers under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, something more than mere prima facie case is required. They further submit that learned Court below ought to have travelled beyond prima facie case in order to invoke powers under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The impugned order under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. of the learned Court below, is passed in a mechanical manner by considering the aspect of there exists a prima facie case against the applicants. This Court, therefore, in its orders dated 15/07/2014 and 18/07/2014 has already observed that the learned Trial Court has considered the evidence, which is clearly inadmissible in law and since the strong grounds were made by the applicants, this Court vide the said orders dated 15/07/2014 and 18/07/2014 made rule returnable early and also pleased to grant stay to the trial in respect of present applicants during the pendency of present revision applications.

Mr Ostwal and Mr Sangeet, learned Advocates for applicants thereafter invite attention of this Court to the order passed in Criminal Appeal No.75/2015 preferred by accused No.2/Raju Sonawane while challenging his conviction. This Court, in the said case, at paragraph No.38 observed thus :-

Drawing support from the aforesaid judgment, learned Advocates for applicants submit that, no purpose would be served by permitting prosecution for trial against the applicants on the basis of aforesaid piece of evidence. Learned Advocates for the applicants, therefore, submit that the impugned order dated 07/07/2014 may be quashed and set aside.

Per contra, Mr Panale, learned Advocate for respondent No.1/CBI, learned APP for respondent No.2 and Mr Salunke, learned Advocate for respondent No.3/informant strongly opposed these applications. According to them, the Trial Court may be proceeded further against the applicants. They further submit that offences under Sections 302 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code are completely distinct offences, and if the prosecution succeeds, the applicants will be convicted. They further submit that, before undergoing the trial, the applicants cannot be considered to be not involved in the instant crime, and hence, they pray for rejection of instant applications.

After going through the aforesaid submissions made by the learned Advocates for respective parties, and perusal of the material placed before this Court, it is evident that the Trial Court proceeded with the trial against accused No.2 Raju Sonawane. The Trial Court initially convicted him, however, the said conviction was quashed and set aside by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.75/2015. The said acquittal order was challenged before the Hon’ble Apex Court by the CBI vide Special Leave Petition (Cr.) Diary No(s). 36761/2023 and the same was dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide the order dated 27/09/2023. Thus, the said order of this Court dated 17/02/2023, passed in Criminal Appeal No.75/2015 in respect of Raju Sonawane has attained finality. This Court, after going through the evidence of all the witnesses has passed the detailed order, thereby holding that there is no credible and reliable evidence and or even any circumstance to draw inference about accused persons hatching conspiracy to commit the murder. There is no evidence to suggest that there was any meeting between them by any mode or say, meeting of minds. It was expected from the prosecution to demonstrate who had hired whom, when the prosecution case is regarding contract killing. There is no evidence in that regard. This Court, in the said appeal has even went further by stating that even the very motive for the accused persons to commit murder vanishes in thin air.

The offence of criminal conspiracy is defined in Section 120-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code provides for its punishment. Section 120-A reads thus:-

By the numerous judgments, time and again, the Hon’ble Apex Court has dealt with essential ingredients for attracting the said charge. To establish criminal conspiracy, the prosecution must adduce evidence to prove that :-

Thus, the aforesaid guidelines are considered in criminal conspiracy meeting of minds of two or more persons for committing illegal act is a sine qua non. To convict a person for conspiracy, it is incumbent upon prosecution to show that the accused persons together agreed to accomplish the unlawful object of conspiracy.

The aforesaid position has been made clear by landmark judgments delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Yakub Abdul Razak Memon Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 13 SCC 1 and Mukesh and another Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and others, (2017) 6 SCC 1.

As it is already observed by the Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No.75/2015 that there is no evidence to suggest that there was any meeting between them by any mode or say, meeting of their minds, this Court finds that, no purpose would be served by adding the applicants in the sessions trial by permitting the prosecution to prosecute them further. Before this Court, the prosecution could not point out any other material, which was against the applicants for the purpose of permitting the prosecution to prosecute against them. As already observed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.75/2015 that the prosecution even could not bring on record very motive to commit the murder, I am of the opinion that no purpose will be served by summoning the applicants and forcing them to suffer from the agony of sessions trial. Hence, I proceeded to pass the following order :-

Both these revision applications stand allowed.

The impugned order dated 07/07/2014 below Exhibit 610 in Sessions Case No.8/2006, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Jalgaon is hereby quashed and set aside in both the revision applications.

No order as to costs.