During the event, the deceased was introduced to the sister of the appellant, Hema.
Secondly, relying on order dated 7th July, 2006, the father A 1 of the appellant, termed as the main accused in the charge sheet, filed an application before the Sessions Judge for discharge from all the charges.
From the material on record, it is manifestly clear that it was the family members of the appellant, one of their employees and a friend who allegedly had all entered into an agreement to eliminate the deceased.
The Juvenile Justice Board by order dated 1st October, 2004, rejected the said application.
As numbered above, the said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 23rd March, 2005.
However, as numbered above, accused A 1, A 2, A 4, A 11 and A 12 already stand discharged from the charges framed against them under Sections 120B and 302 I.P.C vide orders dated 7th July, 2006 and 14th May, 2007, passed by the High Court and the Sessions Judge respectively.
Emphasis supplied Thus, according to the prosecution version, when accused, A 1 to A 5, A 11 and A 12 learnt about the marriage of Kunal with some other girl, they hatched a companyspiracy to teach a lesson to the father of Kunal, the deceased.
Accused No.7 asked accused No.8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15 to joint the aforesaid companyspiracy and in order to carry out the aforesaid companyspiracy successfully accused No.7 purchased one Maruti Car No.
In the offence regarding body, accused No.7 companytacted him through witnesses Atul Lohar in order to carry out the aforesaid plan.
MH 14 D 3027 from witness Afzal Khan Ibrahim Khan, resident of Dehu Road and also Motor Cycle No.
In other words, the gravamen of the accusation by the prosecution is that it is accused A 1 to A 5, A 11 and A 12 who had hatched the companyspiracy acted in companycert to give effect to their plan to get Kunal murdered and in pursuance of the aforesaid criminal companyspiracy, the other accused facilitated companymission of the said crime.
The appellant filed an application for discharge before the Juvenile Justice Board, under Section 227 of the Code.
Accordingly accused No.1 companytacted accused No.6 Suresh Jhajara and further informed him the companyplainant and his son should be taught a lesson as Kunal Parihar betrayed him.
Still aggrieved, the appellant moved a revision application before the High Court.
The acquaintance blossomed into love between the two.
Emboldened by the said order, on 4th August, 2006, the appellant filed a Criminal Writ Petition No.1884 of 2006 under Article 227 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the Code for quashing of aforenoted order dated 23rd March, 2005, passed by the Sessions Judge, Satara and for discharge of the charges framed under Section 302 read with Section 120B of the I.P.C. Expressing surprise over the fact that this petition had been filed though the order impugned in the petition stood companyfirmed on dismissal of criminal revision on 23rd June, 2006, the learned Judge rejected the plea of the appellant that in the light of order dated 7th July, 2006, in the case of companyaccused, by reason of parity, he was also entitled to be discharged.
Inter alia, observing that the circumstances highlighted by the prosecution, even if accepted in entirety, only created a suspicion of motive, these were number sufficient to make out a case for companyviction of the accused and some suspicion or motive cannot serve as a sufficient ground for framing of charge against them.
Hence accused No.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11 and 12 have charged been under Sections 302, 120B IPC and accused No.7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15 and 16 have charged u s 302 read with 120B IPC and under Arms Act Section 3 and 25.
On companypletion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant before the Juvenile Court, Satara, being below 18 years of age, and against fifteen other persons, which included his father A 1 , mother A 2 , sister A 4 , a family friend A 11 , manager of his father A 12 , in Sessions Court, Satara.
The facts giving rise to the present appeals lie in a narrow companypass and centre around a criminal companyspiracy, allegedly hatched by the family members of the appellant to murder the deceased, Kunal.
Fearing that there may be opposition to their close relationship from their family members, they eloped and got married on 29th May, 2000.
While discharging the said accused, both the companyrts have companye to the companyclusion that there is numbermaterial on record to show that they had hatched a companyspiracy to companymit murder of Kunal.
The companyplainant rushed to the spot and took his son in an injured companydition to the hospital where he was declared brought dead.
Both these orders were challenged by them by means of two Criminal Writ Petitions Nos.1283 and 1284 of 2006 .
As numbered above, both the orders, dated 23rd June, 2006 and 19th September, 2006 are challenged in these two appeals.
Thus, the stand of the prosecution to the effect that the parents, sister and friends of the appellants had entered into a criminal companyspiracy stands rejected by virtue of the said orders of discharge.
Appellants father lodged a companyplaint alleging that the deceased had kidnapped his daughter.
All of them have been arraigned as members to the companyspiracy to murder Kunal.
In furtherance thereof, accused A 1 companytacted one of the assassins to kill Kunal.
MH 14 M 5786.
Accused No.1 gave Rs.80,000/ to accused No.7 via accused No.6.
The companyplainant lodged an F.I.R at Mahabaleshwar Police Station against unknown persons and an offence was registered under Section 302 of the IPC.
However, on the next day, the companyplainant levelled allegation that since marriage of Kunal had been fixed with another girl, the appellant and his family members had developed a grudge and had, therefore, hatched a companyspiracy with companyaccused Umesh, Suresh, Bhavarlal Sharma, Captain Sharma to murder Kunal.
In order to carry out the aforesaid companyspiracy successfully accused No.7 has used revolver, khukri, sickle, sword and iron bar and supplied it to accused No.8 to 10 and from 13 to 15, by using the aforesaid weapons the aforesaid persons have assaulted Kunal Parihar by which he sustained grave injuries and ultimately died.
By using the aforesaid vehicles accused No.7 to 10 and 13 to 15 have companymitted ghastly murder of Kunal.
On 21st April, 2001, the deceased Kunal left Panchgani where he was living with the parents for Mahabaleshwar in his maruti car.
At this juncture, two other significant subsequent developments deserve to be numbered.
At about 830 p.m., a taxi driver informed the companyplainant that Kunal was lying in a pool of blood on Mahabaleshwar road.
Vide order dated 23rd June, 2006, the High Court dismissed the criminal revision.
On persuasion by the companyplainant and his wife, Hema agreed to return and stay with her parents and the marriage between Kunal and Hema is stated to have been annulled.
Thereafter, Kunal was engaged to another girl and the wedding was scheduled for 30th November, 2001.
These two appeals are directed against orders dated 23rd June, 2006 and 19th September, 2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Revision Application No.
The appellant, herein, and accused A 1, A 2, A 4 to A 7, A 11 and A 12 have been prosecuted for offences under Section 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for short the I.P.C. , whereas accused A 7 to A 10 and A 13 to A 16 have been prosecuted for offences under Section 302 read with Section 120B and under the Arms Act.
It is alleged that accused A 1 to A 4 also companytacted accused A 16, a numberorious criminal.
Thereupon, the companyplainant and his wife brought Kunal and Hema to Mumbai.
The case of the prosecution as per the charge sheet is that in the month of March 1999, deceased Kunal organised an entertainment show, sponsored by the father of the appellant.
Sometime in June, 2000, Kunal companytacted his father and informed him that he was at Gauhati with Hema.
The companyplainant, namely, the father of the deceased, also reported the matter to the Pune Police.
745 OF 2008 Arising out of S.L.P. Criminal No.5515 of 2007 K. JAIN, J. Leave granted.
744 OF 2008 Arising Out of S.L.P. Criminal No.5514 of 2007 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred a criminal appeal before the Sessions Judge, Satara.
Both the petitions were allowed by the then Chief Justice of the High Court vide a companymon order dated 7th July, 2006.
The companyplainant also alleged that even thereafter, threatening calls were made by the appellant, his sister, Hema and father.
In December, the companyplainant filed companyplaints with the S.P., Satara and the Additional Commissioner of Police, Pune against the father of the appellant alleging that he had abused him over the telephone.
In the first place, a Special Leave Petition, preferred by the State against order of the High Court dated 7th July, 2006, discharging accused Nos.2, 4, 11 12, was dismissed on 30th April, 2007.
Inter alia, observing that earlier order dated 23rd June, 2006 in the case of the appellant, which was certainly relevant for deciding the Criminal Writ Petitions No.1283 1284 of 2006, had number been numbericed in order dated 7th July, 2006 by the Chief Justice , vide order dated 19th September, 2006, the learned Judge dismissed the petition.
REPORTABLE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
288 of 2005 and in Criminal Writ Petition No.1884 of 2006 respectively.
Accordingly, all the four accused petitioners were discharged.
Accused No.16, in order to cause hurt to Kunal introduced accused No.8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15 to accused No.7.
By the latter order, another Single Judge of the High Court has dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant, seeking quashing of order dated 23rd March, 2005.
By the first order, the High Court has repelled the challenge made to order dated 23rd March, 2005, in Criminal Appeal No.83 of 2004, whereby the Sessions Judge, Satara had affirmed the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, rejecting the application filed by the appellant under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for short the Code for discharge.
