INTHECOURTOFSESSIONSFORGREATERBOMBAY

DISCHARGEAPPLICATION(EXHIBIT1338)

IN

SESSIONCASENO.177/2013,178/2013,577/2013&312/2014

KartarSingh APPLICANT
(ACCUSEDNo.29)
VERSUS

CENTRALBUREAUOFINVESTIGATION
ANDOTHERS COMPLAINANT
NONAPPLICANT

Appearance:
AdvocateNiranjanMundargiforAccusedNo.29
ShriB.P.RajuSpecialP.P.CBI/NonApplicant

CORAM: THEADDITIONALSESSIONSJUDGE
SHRIS.J.SHARMA(CRNo.49)

DATE :20thSeptember,2017

ORDERBELOWEXHIBIT1338

1. AccusedNo.29/applicantnamedabovebythisapplication
filed under section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure claimed
dischargefromtheoffencespunishableundersection120B,364,365,368,
341, 342, 384, 302 r/w section 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
section 25oftheArmsAct,statingthatuponconsideringevidenceand
materialonrecordtenderedandreliedbythe prosecution,itbeingnot
sufficienttoframethechargeagainsthimandfurtherclaimedfordropping
2OrderbelowExh.1338in
S.C.177/2013,178/2013,577/2013
&312/2014

oftheprosecutionforwantofsanctionascontemplatedundersection197
ofthe Criminal Procedure Code fromthe State Governmentcontending
interalia that whatever actsoromissionshe allegedlycommitted being
committedbyhimwhiledischarginghisofficialdutiesasPoliceconstable,
Rajasthan.

2. It will be worthwhile to consider and appreciate the

prosecutioncaseandspecificallegationsmadeagainstthisaccused,which
areexpedientfordecidingtheapplicationinhand.

During the period between 2004 to 2006, police

officers/policemen of Gujarat and Rajasthan State along with some
politicians entered into criminal conspiracy to nab and kill dreaded
criminaloneSohrabuddinSheikh,whowassaidtobeinvolvedinsomany
casesofmurder,abductions,extortion,carryingfirearms,etc.pendingin
various courts of State of Gujarat and State of Rajasthan. The said
Sohrabuddinwasshowntobeabscondingaccusedinonecrimeregistered
against him in Navrangpura Police Station, Ahmadabad. He was also
shownabscondingaccusedinamurdercaseofoneHamidLala,registered
at Hathipole Police Station, Udaipur in State of Rajasthan. Therefore,
policeofboththeStatesweresearchinghim.

3. Itisfurtherallegedbytheprosecutionthatinpursuanceof
suchconspiracytonabsaidSohrabuddinandtoeliminatehim,teamof
policemenofboththeStateswereformed.

4. The policemen learntthat Sohrabuddin alongwith his wife

Kausarbi had gone to Hyderabad to celebrate Eid at the house of one
Kalimuddin.TheyfurtherlearntthatSohrabuddinwastogobacktoSangli
3OrderbelowExh.1338in
S.C.177/2013,178/2013,577/2013
&312/2014

(Maharashtra)fromHyderabadon22/11/2005inaluxurybusofM/s.
SangeelaTravelsbearingno.KA05F5051.Itwas,therefore,decidedto
abductSohrabuddinfromthesaidbus.Accordingly,thepoliceteamfrom
GujaratwenttoHyderabad.

5. Itisfurtherallegedbytheprosecutionthatsaidbusreached
at M.S. Dhaba near Zaheerabad and halted there at 11:30 pm for
refreshmenton22/11/2005.Whenthe saidbuswas15kmawayfrom
ZaheerabadandwasproceedingtowardsBelgaum,itwasinterceptedby
twoTataSumoandoneQualisJeep.Thebusdriverwasmadetostopthe
bus.Twopersons,whowereinplainclothesenteredthebus,whileone
waitedatthedoor.Theyaskedthedrivertoswitchontheinternallights.
Theyinformedthattheyarepolicemenandwantedtotakesearchofthe
bus.Ultimately,Sohrabuddin,Kausarbiandonemorepersonclaimedtobe
TulsiramPrajapatiweretakenincustody.TheywerebroughttoValsad,
wheretheyalltooklunchinahotelandthereafterTulsiramPrajapatiwas
shifted in another Jeep and was taken to Udaipur by Rajasthan police;
whereasSohrabuddinandKausarbiweretakentoAhmadabadbyGujarat
police. Sohrabuddin and Kausarbi were kept in Disha FarmHouse near
Ahmadabadtill25/11/2005.

6. Itisfurtherallegedbytheprosecutionthaton25/11/2005,
SohrabuddinalonewastakentoArhamFarmHouseandthereafterlastly
hewastakentowardsGSBpolesituatedbetweenNarolandVishalaCircle.
Soharbuddinwaskilledinafakeencounterinthemorningof26/11/2005
atabout5:20am.Afterabout3daysthereafter,hiswifeKausarbiwasalso
killedbypoliceandherdeadbodywasburntanddisposedofontheriver
bed near village Illol on 29/11/2005. After aboutone year there from,
4OrderbelowExh.1338in
S.C.177/2013,178/2013,577/2013
&312/2014

morespecificallyon27/12/2006,TulsiramPrajapatiwasalsoshotdeadby
GujaratandRajasthanpoliceinastagemanagedencounternearSarhad
ChaprionborderofStateofGujaratandRajasthan.Crimeno.115/2006
wasregisteredbyRajasthanpolicethatTulsiramPrajapatihasbeenkilled
inencounter.

7. Itisfurther the caseofprosecution thatbothKausarbiand

TulsiramPrajapatiwerekilledastheywereeyewitnessestotheabduction
ofSohrabuddin.

8. Abdul Rehman (accused no. 7), a police Inspector of

RajasthanCadrefiledacomplaintwithATSCrimeGujaraton26/11/2005
statingthatwhileSohrabuddintheabscondingaccusedwascomingfrom
SuratbyHighway,hewasaskedtosurrenderbutheatonceopenedfire
onpolicemenwhoweretoapprehendhim.Inretaliation,thepolicealso
opened fire against Sohrabuddin in which he died. The matter was
investigatedbypoliceofficerMr.M.L.Parmar(Accusedno.4)whofound
thatitwasagenuineencounterandfiledabatesummaryreport.

9. It is further alleged by the prosecution that Rubabuddin

Sheikhbrother ofslain Sohrabuddin,suspectedsomefoulplayinthe
deathofhisbrotherandthereforesentalettertotheHonbleChiefJustice
ofIndiarequestingtoenquireintothematterofdeathofSohrabuddinand
disappearance of Kausarbi. That complaint came to be forwarded to
Director General of Police, Gujarat with direction to enquire into the
allegationsandtodotheneedful.TheDirectorGeneralofPolice,Gujarat
thereupon asked CID Crime Gujarat, to reinvestigate the matter.
Accordinglythematterwasreinvestigatedandchargesheetcametobe
5OrderbelowExh.1338in
S.C.177/2013,178/2013,577/2013
&312/2014

filed against thirteen (13) police officials inclusive of this accused/

applicantundersection120B,364A,302,201ofIPC.

10. Itisfurtherallegedbytheprosecutionthatwhilehearingbail
petitionbytheHonbleGujaratHighCourtitwasfoundthatinthereport
ofP.I.ShriSolankiofCIDCrime,thereappearstobeinvolvementoftwo
more persons and therefore ultimately those two persons were
subsequentlyaddedasaccusedno.14&15inthechargesheetfiledby
CIDCrime.

11. ItisfurtherallegedbytheprosecutionthatsaidRubabuddin
brotherofslainSohrabuddinwasnotsatisfiedwithabovecourseofaction
and therefore filed a writ petition bearing no. 6/2007 in the Honble
SupremeCourtwitharequesttodirectCBItoreinvestigatethecase.In
viewofthekillingofsaidTulsiramPrajapatiinfakeencounter,hismother
Narmadabaialsofiledawritpetition in the HonbleSupremeCourt.In
ordertohavefairinvestigation,theHonbleSupremeCourtdirectedCBI
Mumbai,tocarryfurtherinvestigationaftertakingintoconsiderationall
aspectinclusiveofalargerconspiracyinallthree(3)killings.Accordingly,
CBIMumbaiinvestigatedthematterandfiledonemainchargesheetand
threesupplementarychargesheetsagainsttotal38accused.

12. In view of involvement of Minister, Highranking police

officers in the matter of death of Sohrabuddin, Kausarbi and Tulsiram
Prajapati, the Honble Supreme Court transferred the trial to this court
fromCBIcourtatAhmadabad,inordertohavefairtrial.
6OrderbelowExh.1338in
S.C.177/2013,178/2013,577/2013
&312/2014

13. Accusedno.29/applicantcametobeprosecutedinthiscase
asCBIfoundhisinvolvementincommittingcrimeinfollowingmanner:

i. Theapplicant/accusedno.29alongwith other police

officials namely Mr. Dinesh M.N. (A3) (superintendent of
Police), Abdul Rehman (A7) (Police Inspector), Narayan
Singh (A26) (A.S.I.), Yudhveer Singh (A27) (Police
Constable) and Dalpat Singh Rathod (A28) (Police
Constable) conspired and thereby done stage managed the
escapeofTulsiramPrajapation27/12/2006betweenRaigadh
and Shyamlaji at about 3:00 am from the Train No. 9944
when Tulsiram Prajapati was being taken back from
AhmadabadtoUdaipurtoadmithiminajailofUdaipurafter
attendingCourt.

ii. It is further alleged by prosecution against this

accused/applicantthathealsoaccompaniedtheescortteam
of Rajasthan police and SOG team to Ambaji for killing
TulsiramPrajapati.

iii. This applicant/accused had come at Ahmadabad by

trainundercoveronearliertwocourtproductiondatesi.e.
28/11/2006 and 12/12/2006 before the encounter of
Tulsiram Prajapati for conducing recce. He stayed in
Government Guest House, Vihsramgrah, Ahmedabad during
thesaidvisits.

iv. It is further alleged that A26, A27, A28 and this

accused/applicantwereworkingindifferentpolicestationsat
Udaipur.Inordertocheckthecrimeoftheft,burglary,etcin
Udaipurcity,anorderdated08/11/2006wasissuedbyD.S.P.
7OrderbelowExh.1338in
S.C.177/2013,178/2013,577/2013
&312/2014

Dinesh M.N. (A3) thereby 14 police officials inclusive of

officialsnamedabovecametobewithdrawn fromdifferent
policestationsandtheyweregivenspecialdutytocheckthe
crime and came to be posted at Surajpol police station of
Udaipur.

v. ThesaidTulsiramPrajapatiandoneMohammadAzam
wereinUdaipurjail.Theyweresentwithescortinthepast
fromUdaipurtoAhmadabadtoattendthecourtofCJM.On
last escort of Tulsiram Prajapati to Ahmadabad on
26/12/2006inordertoproducehimatAhmadabadcourton
27/12/2006, A26, A27, A28 and this applicant/accused
weredeputed.WhilereturningbacktoUdaipurfromthesaid
court in the night of 27/12/2006 during train journey,
TulsiramPrajapatiexpressedtogoforurinationandtherefore
twopoliceofficialsviz.A27andA29tookhimtothetoilet
duringtrainjourney.AtthattimeA26andA28weresitting
on the berth. In the mean while when the train was
proceeding between Raigadh to Shyamlaji where there was
acuteturnandspeedoftrainwasabout20KMPH,Tulsiram
Prajapati ran away from the custody. According to the
prosecutionthisstoryofescapingofTusliramPrajapatifrom
custodywasafalsestorycreatedbythepolicetosuppressthe
elementofconspiracytohavehisstagemanagedencounter.

iv. On 27/12/2006 at about 5:00 pm, in fact, Tulsiram

Prajapatiwasalreadyincustodyofpolice,waskilledinfake
encounterinavillageontheborderofGujaratandRajasthan
8OrderbelowExh.1338in
S.C.177/2013,178/2013,577/2013
&312/2014

State. Thus this accused/applicant acted in conspiracy with

otherpoliceofficersinthekillingofTulsiramPrajapati.

14. The applicant/accused claims that this applicant alongwith

A26, A27 and A28 escorted Tulsiram Prajapati from Udaipur Jail to
AhmedabadtoproducehimbeforeCourtNo.13on26.12.2006inrelation
toPopularBuilderFiringCaseandafterproducingbeforethatCourtthis
police team viz. the applicant/accused, A26, A27 and A28 were
returning back with Tulsiram Prajapati from Ahmedabad to Udaipur by
railway and on 27.12.2006 at about 2.05 hrs. the train halted at
HimmatnagarRailwayStationandaboutanhourafterthetraindeparted
from Himmatnagar, Tulsiram Prajapati asked to go to urinary and
therefore A27 and A29 escorted him to the toilet and A26 and A28
remainedseatedonthebirthandwithintwominutesshoutsregardingthe
escape of Tulsiram Prajapati were heard and A26 and A28 rushed
towardsthe toilet. Atthat time the train was movingslowlyandthey
heardtworoundsbeingfired,oneaftertheotherandwhentheyreached
nearthetoilettheysawA27andA29rubbingtheireyesandhavesaid
A26thatTulsiramPrajapatiescapedwiththehelpofanotherbythrowing
chillypowderintheireyesandTulsiramPrajapatigavejerktothechain
whichA29washoldingandinthetusslethatensued,TulsiramPrajapati
gotfreeandescaped.A28pulledthechainandthetrainstopped.After
gettingdown,A26andA28chasedTulsiramPrajapatiandhisaccomplice
and A26 fired four rounds of his service revolver and A28 fired two
roundsandTulsiramPrajapatiandhisaccomplicealsofiredtworoundsat
A26andA28andsucceededtorunaway.Accordingtothisapplicanthe
wasonlyamemberoftheescortpartyanditwouldthereforebeagreat
miscarriageofjusticeifheisprosecutedformerelydischarginghisofficial
9OrderbelowExh.1338in
S.C.177/2013,178/2013,577/2013
&312/2014

duty. ItisalsoclaimedbyhimthatasperFIR115/06relatingtothe
allegedfakeencounter,theroleofA29ismerelythatoftakingthetwo
injuredpeoplenamelyTulsiramPrajapatiandAshishA.Pandyaandeven
thestatementsmadebythecoaccusedinthepanchnamarecordedwhile
reconstructingthesceneofoffencedonotinanywayimplicatehimor
state that he fired at Tulsiram Prajapati. It is also not the case of
prosecution that the applicant/accused has fired/shot at Tulsiram
Prajapati.Consequently,thereisnomaterialonrecordtomakeoutacase
toframechargeagainstapplicant/accusedandthereforeheisentitledfor
dischargeunderSection227ofCr.P.C.

15. Theapplicant/accusedfurtherclaimsthatcourtoughtnotto
havetakencognizanceoftheallegedoffenceagainsthimwithoutsanction
from the State Government as required under section 197 Cr. P. C.
because,heplayedrolepursuanttothedirectionsgivenbyhissuperior
officerswhichformspartandparcelofhisduty.Theallegedactsattributed
againsthimbytheprosecutioncanbesaidtobesufficienttohavebeen
performed in the course of his official duty. Consequently, he being
policeman viz. public servant, prior sanction to prosecute him as
contemplatedundersection197ofCr.P.C.wasnecessarywhichwasnot
obtainedbytheprosecutionandthereforeprosecutionagainsthimneeds
tobedropped.

16. It is contended for this accused/applicant that when under

trialsweretobetakenfromjailofUdaipurtothecourtsatAhmadabad
and in view of paucity of police officials in the police headquarter as
informedbyPW114(HeadConstableHazarilalMeena)totheS.P.Dinesh
M.N. (A3), he was informed that there being possibility of attempt to
10OrderbelowExh.1338in
S.C.177/2013,178/2013,577/2013
&312/2014

escapefromcustodybyTulsiramPrajapati,fourpoliceofficialsincluding
thisapplicant/accusedwereengagedtoescort.Thusheactedindischarge
ofhisofficialduty.Itisconsequently,submittedthattherewasneveran
occasion that police officials including this applicant/accused had any
meetingandanysortofcommunication/conversationofanynaturewith
S.P. Mr. Dinesh M.N. prior to engaging them to escort and even when
TulsiramPrajapatiwasbeingescorted.Inviewofsuchfacts,evenonmerit,
itisallegedthatelementofmeetingofmindstoagreetodoanyillegalact
orlegalactbyillegalmeansbeingabsent,heisentitledfordischargein
viewofsection227ofCr.P.C.

It is further contended by Ld. Counsel for the applicant/

accused that the prosecution on the basis of the FIR given by Ashish
Pandyaallegedthattheapplicant/accusedwasamemberofteamofpolice
officials which said to have killed Tulsiram Prajapati in alleged stage
managedencounterbutthereisnoallegationthattheapplicant/accused
madeshootingintheallegedkilling.Accordingtohimmerepresenceof
theapplicant/accusedonthespotofincidentisnotenoughmaterialto
frame charge against him under Section 120(b), 302 and 201 of IPC
withouttherebeinganyotherevidenceonrecordtoshowthathewaspart
ofcriminalconspiracy.Hemadereferenceoftheobservationmadebymy
predecessorinparagraph20oftheorderonapplicationExh.606ofthe
accusedN.K.Aminandarguedthatbesidesthefactthattheapplicant/
accusedwasthememberofescortteam,thereisnomaterialproducedon
record to show that he was part of criminal conspiracy. The learned
Counsel also contended that in the escape of Tulsiram Prajapati cilly
powderwasthrownintheeyesofA27andA29bythetwoassociatesof
Tulsiram Prajapati near the bathroom in the compartment. The
prosecutionstronglyopposedthisstoryonthebasisofthemedicalreport.
11OrderbelowExh.1338in
S.C.177/2013,178/2013,577/2013
&312/2014

AccordingtothelearnedCounsel,A27andA29wereexaminedbythe
MedicalOfficerafter13hrs.ofincidentandthereforethereispossibility
thatchillypowderwasnotfoundandthatinitselfisnotamaterialon
record to justify prosecution alleging that the story put forth by the
accusedwasfalse.Bymakingthesesubmissionsheclaimeddischargeof
theapplicant/accused.

17. Ld. Special Prosecutor Shri B.P. Raju has vehemently

contended that this accused/applicant was on escort duty of Tulsiram
Prajapatiandcoconspiratorinthecrime.Itissubmittedthatinorderto
establish criminal conspiracy, presence of accused at the spot is not
essential. According to him, the story put forth of escorting Tulsiram
PrajapatifromUdaipurjailtoAhmadabadisafakestorywhichcaneven
besubstantiatedfromtheexpertstatementandmedicalreporttotheeffect
thattherewasnochillipowderfoundintheeyesofA27andA29.He
alsocontendedthatthereisnochallengetothefactofdeathofTulsiram
Prajapati.Acarefulreadingofstatementofprosecutionwitnessesbesides
documentary evidence placed on record will definitely establish that
accused/applicantwasoneoftheconspiratorsalongwiththeotherpolice
officialinthekillingofTulsiramPrajapatiandthereforeheisnotentitled
fordischarge.Itisalsocontendedthatconsideringthematerialonrecord
againstthisaccused/applicant,itcannotbesaidthatheactedindischarge
of his public duty in killing of Tulsiram Prajapati and therefore prior
sanctionofGovernmenttoprosecutehimisnotwarrantedinthiscase.

18. Ihavegonethroughthecasepapersincludingstatementsof
witnesses more particularly statement of Azam Khan (PW4), Himmat
Singh(PW52),HinglazDan(PW80),Budhnaranyan(PW92),TejSingh
12OrderbelowExh.1338in
S.C.177/2013,178/2013,577/2013
&312/2014

(PW93), Ummed Singh (PW94), Jagdish Ramanlal Prajapati (PW95),

DayaLal(PW100),Nizamuddin(PW101),FatehSingh(PW109),Gopal
Singh Chundawat (PW111), Govind Singh (PW112), Om Kumar (PW
113), Hazarilal Meena (PW114), Bhopal Singh Rahtore (Pw115),
HemendraSinghChouhan(PW127),Ghanshyam(PW137),HiralalAhari
(PW138),VasantbhaiSurajiBarot(PW145),RajendraSinghBhambhala
(PW149) and Dr. Manishbhai Amraji Suvera (Pw151). I have gone
through the documentary evidence viz. complaint dated 27/12/2006
lodgedbyShriNarayanSingh,FIRregisteredwithRailwayAhmadabad,
Panchanamadated27/12/2006drawnbyMr.P.M.Jadhav(P.I.)regarding
seizureofoneemptycartridgefromthisaccuse/applicant,MLCcertificate
dated27/12/2006, FIRno. 115/2006, complaintofPSIAshish Pandya,
Panchanam dated 09/05/2010, ballistic report dated 23/05/2007,
Government guest house register of Ahmadabad , order issued by S.P.
DineshM.N.,etc.asmentionedintheargumentsubmittedbyprosecution.
Ihavealsogonethroughthecitationsreferredbytheparties.

19. Tosubstantiate hisargument,Ld.Counselfortheapplicant

prayed toconsider the rulingsreliedupon by this courtwhile deciding
discharge of other coaccused. As against this, Ld. Prosecutor placed
relianceonrulingsinthecaseof

a. StateofBiharV/s.RameshSingh1977Cri.L.J.
1606(1);
b. StateofKarnatakaV/s.L.Muniswamy&Ors.1979
Cri.L.J.1125(1);
c. UnionofIndiaV/s.PrafullaKumarSamal1996Cri.L.J.
154(1);
d. StateofMaharashtraV/s.SomnathThapa1996Cri.L.J.
2448;
e. StateofOrissaV/s.DebendraNathPadhiAIR2005
SC359;
13OrderbelowExh.1338in
S.C.177/2013,178/2013,577/2013
&312/2014

f. P.VijayanV/s.StateofKerala2010Cri.L.J.1427;
g. RukmaniNarvekarV/s.VijayaSatardekarAIR2009
SC1013;
h. ShorajSinghAhlawat&Ors.V/s.StateofU.P.&Ors.
2013Cri.L.J.331.

20. Firstofallitwouldbeworthwhiletoconsiderthescopeof
section227ofCriminalProcedureCode.Forthispurposeitisbetterto
haveaglancetothesaidprovisionwhichreadsasunder:

If, upon the consideration of the record of the case, and

documentssubmittedtherewith,afterhearingsubmissionsoftheaccused
andtheprosecutioninthatbehalf,thejudgeconsidersthat,thereisnot
sufficientgroundforproceedingagainsttheaccused,heshalldischargethe
accusedandrecordhisreasonsforsodoing.

21. It is not necessary to note each and every ruling while

deciding the application in hand, more particularly when ratio held in
citationsreferredtoareelaboratelydiscussedanddealtwithanyoneof
thecitation.

The Honble Apex Court in the matter of Century Spinning and

Manufacturing Company V/s. State of Maharashtra (1972) 3 SCC 282
consideredthescopeofsection 251(A)Cr.P.C1898(oldcode),now
section239oftheCr.P.C.Itisobservedinpara.17that:

theorderofframingchargedoessubstantiallyaffects
the persons liberty and it is not possible to
countenance the view that the Court must
automaticallyframethechargemerelybecausethe
prosecuting authorities, by relying on documents
referred to in section 173, considers it proper to
institute the case. The responsibility of framing
14OrderbelowExh.1338in
S.C.177/2013,178/2013,577/2013
&312/2014

charges is that of the Court and it has to

judicially consider the question of doing so.
Withoutfullyadvertingthematerialonrecord,
it must not blindly adopt the decision of the
prosecution.

The scope of sec.227, Cr.P.C. was considered by Hon'ble

SupremeCourtin the ruling Union ofIndia v/sPrafullaKumarSamal
((1979)3SCC4).Itwasheldthat,

the words not sufficient grounds for proceeding

againsttheaccusedclearlyshowsthatthejudgeisnot
amerepostofficetoframethechargeatthebehestof
the prosecution, but, he has to exercise his judicial
mind to the facts of the case in order to determine
whether a case for trial has been made out by the
prosecution.Inassessingthisfact,itisnotnecessary
fortheCourttoenterintoprosandconsofthematter
or into weighing and balancing the evidence and
probabilitieswhichisreallyhisfunctionafterthetrial
starts. At the stage of section 227, the judge has
merelytosifttheevidenceinordertofindoutwhether
or not, there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused. The sufficiency of the ground
would take within its fold the nature of evidence
recorded by the police or the documents produced
beforetheCourtwhichExFaciedisclosethatthereare
suspiciouscircumstancesagainsttheaccusedtoframe
thecharge.

IthasfurtherbeenheldbytheApexCourtthat,

The scope of section 227 of the code was

consideredbyarecentdecisionofthisCourt. Inthe
caseofStateofBiharv/sRameshSingh,theCourt
15OrderbelowExh.1338in
S.C.177/2013,178/2013,577/2013
&312/2014

observed as follows: Strong suspicion against the

accused, if the matter remains in the region of
suspicion,cannottakepaleofproofofhisguiltatthe
conclusionoftrial. But,ifatinitialstagethereisa
strongsuspicion,whichleadstheCourttothinkthat
thereisgroundforpresumingthattheaccusedhas
committedanoffence,thenitisnotopentotheCourt
toSaythatthereisnosufficientgroundofproceeding
againsttheaccused.Thepresumptionoftheguiltof
theaccusedwhichistobedrawnataninitialstageis
notinthesenseofthelawgoverningtrialofcriminal
casesinFrance,wheretheaccusedispresumedtobe
guiltyunlessthecontraryisproved.ButItisonlyfor
thepurposeofdecidingprimafaciewhethertheCourt
shouldproceedwiththetrialornot.Iftheevidence
whichtheprosecutorproposestoadducetoprovethe
guiltoftheaccused,eveniffullyacceptedbeforeitis
challenged in cross examination or rebutted by the
defenceevidence,ifany,cannotshowthattheaccused
committedtheoffence,thenthereisnosufficient
groundforproceedingwiththetrial.ThisCourthas
thusheldthat,whereasstrongsuspicionmaynottake
place of proof at the trial stage, yet it may be
sufficientforthesatisfactionoftheSessionsJudge
toframethechargeagainsttheaccused.

InthecaseofPVijayan v/sStateofKerala(2010Cri.L.J.
1427(SC)),theHon'bleApexCourtwhileconsideringthescopeof
section227oftheCr.P.C.observedthat,

Iftwoviewsarepossibleandoneofthemgivesrise
to suspicion only as distinguished from grave
suspicion,thetrialjudgeisempoweredtodischarge
16OrderbelowExh.1338in
S.C.177/2013,178/2013,577/2013
&312/2014

theaccusedandatthisstageheisnottosee
whethertrialwillendinconvictionoracquittal

IntherecentrulingincaseofShorajSinghAhlawat&Ors.
V/s.StateofU.P.&Ors.2013Cri.L.J.331theHonbleApexCourttook
noteofalmostallrulingsonthissubjectandsuccinctlystatedthefollowing
principlesasguidelines.

To the same effect is the decision of this

courtinUnionofIndiaVs.PrafullaKumarSamai
and Anr. (1979) 3 SCC 4: (AIR 1979 SC 366),
wherethisCourtwasexaminingasimilarquestion
in the context of Section 227 of the Code of
CriminalProcedure.Thelegalpositionwassummed
upasunder:

Thus,onaconsiderationoftheauthorities
mentionedabove,thefollowingprinciplesemerge:

(1) That the Judge while considering the question of

framingthechargesunderSection227oftheCodehasthe
undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the
limitedpurposeoffindingoutwhetherornotaprimafacie
caeagainsttheaccusedhasbeenmadeout:

(2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose

grave suspicion against the accused which has not been
properlyexplainedtheCourtwillbefullyjustifiedinframing
achargeandproceedingwiththetrial.

(3) The test to determine a prima facie case would

naturallydependuponthefactsofeachcaseanditisdifficult
to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large
17OrderbelowExh.1338in
S.C.177/2013,178/2013,577/2013
&312/2014

however iftwoviewsareequallypossibleandthe Judgeis

satisfiedthattheevidenceproducedbeforehimwhilegiving
risetosomesuspicionbutgravesuspicionagainsttheaccused,
hewillbefullywithinhisrighttodischargetheaccused.

(4) ThatinexercisinghisjurisdictionunderSection227of
theCodetheJudgewhichunderthepresentCodeisasenior
andexperiencedJudgecannotactmerelyasaPostOfficeora
mouthpieceoftheprosecution,buthastoconsiderthebroad
probabilitiesofthecase,thetotaleffectoftheevidenceand
the documents produced before the Court, any basic
infirmitiesappearinginthecaseandsoon.Thishoweverdoes
notmeanthattheJudgeshouldmakearovingenquiryinto
theprosandconsofthematterandweightheevidenceasif
hewasconductingatrial.

22. Let us now consider the statement and material on record.

PW111(ASIGopalSinghChundawat)isawitnesswhowasondutyat
Surajpol police station on 25/12/2006 when A26, A27, A28 and this
accused/applicant(A29)leftSurajpolpolicestationtoescortundertrial
prisoners.PW112 (police constable GovindDinghS/o.JawanSingh)
wasondutyatSurajpolpolicestation.On25/12/2006,hetookentryin
Roznamcha(stationdairyno.1690)at11:50amaboutdepartureofpolice
partyconsistingofA26,A27,A28andthisaccused/applicant(A29)on
theinstruction ofSHOShriHimmatSingh.PW115(BhopalSinghS/o.
DeviSinghRathod)corroboratesthestatementofabovementionedtwo
witnessesregardingreportingbytheminpolicelinefromSurajpolpolice
station as per oral order of S.P. Udaipur. PW127 (Hemzndra Singh
18OrderbelowExh.1338in
S.C.177/2013,178/2013,577/2013
&312/2014

Kishore Singh Chauhan), a ticket booking clerk on window no. 2 of

Udaipur railway station that he issued railway tickets on the railway
warrantinfavourofthesefourpoliceofficialsandinfavourofprisoners
namedinthewarrant.offorreservepoliceline.PW137(railwaydriver
GhyanshamBhawarlal)thaton27/12/2006,hewasadriveronUdaipur
mail.TherewaschainpullinginthesaidtrainonthecrossingofVirwada
and Raigarh railway station at around 2:30 to 2:45 hours where train
speedwas20Km/hronaccountofacuteturnofrailwaytrack.Therewas
inquirymadebytrainguardShri.HeeralalAhariasregardtochainpulling
thereuponheinformedonwalkytalkytosaidtrainguard.Helearntabout
thefactthatcriminalwasgotescapedbytwootherpersonsbythrowing
chilli powder in the eyes of police. He however, did not notice chilli
powderintheeyesoronthefaceorontheuniformofpolicepresentthere.
PW138 (Heeralal Ahari Train guard) corroborates statement of train
driver.

PW147(ASISanabhaiJeevabhaiBaranda)attachedtoGRP
railway outpost of Himmat Nagar stated that police officials who were
travelling in train along with criminals Tulsiram and one more person,
informedthattherewasachainpullingandthosecriminalsafterthrowing
chillipowderintheeyesofpoliceofficialsranawayfromthetrain.PW
148(NatwarSinghHeduSinghChawla)railwaypoliceconstableattached
tooutpostHimmatNagarrailwaystatedthaton27/12/2006atabout8:00
am total four officials of Rajasthan police reached to outpost Himmat
Nagar and stated that Tulsiram Prajapati ran away from the train.
Accordinglyoccurrenceno.14/2006wasrecorded.Hetheninformedto
his superior in writing about the said incident at railway police station
AhmadabadwhereFIRno.294/2006wasregistered.
19OrderbelowExh.1338in
S.C.177/2013,178/2013,577/2013
&312/2014

PW151(Dr.ManishbhaiSuveraofGeneralHospital,Himmat
Nagar)statedthatheexaminedon27/12/2006at4:15pmtheeyesofA
27andA29,however,nochillipowderoranyforeignbodywasfoundin
their eyes. PW153 (Hasmukhlal Modi) stated that he was working as
scientificofficerinCityMobileFSL,Ahmadabad.Heexaminedthecoach
no.92618Yoftrainno.9944on28/12/2006.Hefoundredchillipowder
lyingnearwashbasinadjacenttowesternfacingdoorofthesaidcoach.
Chillipowderwasalsofoundonwoodenspacelocatednearwashbasin
anddoor.Theroofofthesaidcoachhadaholeofthediameterof9mm
whererevolvercartridgebulletof0.38inchwasfound.

23. Acarefulscrutinyofstatementofabovementionedwitnesses
besidesrelevantdocumentsplacedonrecordinadditiontothestatement
ofotherwitnessesreferredtoabovebyprosecutionduringarguments,it
woulddefinitelypointoutthatTulsiramPrajapatiwastakenfromUdaipur
jail by this accused/applicant along with three other police officials
referredaboveforhisproductionatAhmadabadcourton26/12/2006and
when they were returning back in a train bearing no.9944 from
AhmadabadtoUdaipurbetweenRaigarhandShyamlajiwheretherewas
acuteturnofrailwaytrackandthespeedoftrainwasslow,saidTulsiram
Prajapati got himself escaped from the police custody andran away. It
prima facie establishes the defence story for worth of reliance. The
contention of prosecution that formation of escort and taking Tulsiram
Prajapatiforhisproductionincourtandhisescapefromtrainaregotup
storycannotbeacceptedinviewofstatementsofwitnessesreferredto
above.Itfurtherestablishesthatthisaccused/applicantwasamemberof
escortparty.
20OrderbelowExh.1338in
S.C.177/2013,178/2013,577/2013
&312/2014

24. OnthestoryofkillingofTulsiramPrajapatiitappearsfrom
the FIR of Ashish Pandya that on receiving the information about the
escapeofTulsiramPrajapatifromthecustodyofpoliceteam,healongwith
A26,A27andA29andhissubordinateswasmovinginpolicejeepin
searchofTulsiramPrajapatiandthattimeTulsiramPrajapatialongwithhis
twoassociateswasseennearamatadorandhealightedfromthejeepand
warnedTulsiramPrajaptitosurrenderbuthetookouthisrevolverand
pointedtowardspoliceteamandhasfiredabulletthathittotheshoulder
ofAshishPandyaandinturnAshishPandyaandA26andA27firedon
him from their service revolver and he got injured and succumbed to
injuries. AtthestageofframingofchargethisFIRwhichisamaterial
evidenceproducedandwhichlateronwasfoundafalsereportoffake
encountercanbeconsidered.Inthisreporttheapplicantaccused(A29)
isshowntobethememberofpoliceteamonthespotofstagemanaged
encounter.Iamawareofthefactthatthelearnedcounselforapplicant/
accusedpressedintoservicetheorderonapplicationExh.606whereinin
paragraph20itwasobservedbymypredecessorthatinhisconsidered
opiniononlybecause the accusedwas present at the place where dead
bodywasburn,isnotenoughmaterialtoframechargeagainsthimunder
Section 120(B), 302 and 201 of IPC without there being any other
evidenceonrecordtoshowthathewaspartofcriminalconspiracy.Itis
tobenotedherethatthisobservationofmypredecessorisnotofanyhelp
totheapplicant/accused. Ihavediscussedinearlierparagraphsofthis
order that the applicant/accused was holding chain of handcuff of
TulsiramPrajhapatiwhenhewasbroughttothebathroomofcompartment
in the train. It was he, from whose custody Tulsiram Prajapati got
escaped. There is statement of the guard of train and railway driver
namelyP.W.137GhanshyamBhawarlalandP.W.138HeeralalAharithat
21OrderbelowExh.1338in
S.C.177/2013,178/2013,577/2013
&312/2014

theydidnotnoticedchillypowderintheeyesoronthefaceoronthe
uniformofpolicepresentthere.MaybethatthemedicalofficerP.W.151
Dr.ManishbhaiSuveraexaminedtheeyesofA27andA29on27.12.2006
at4.15p.m.,howevernochillypowderoranyforeignbodywasfoundby
himintheireyes.Therefore,thesubmissionofthelearnedcounselforthe
applicant/accusedthatthereisnomaterialonrecordtoestablishthatthe
applicant/accused(A29)wasaconspiratorandwasamemberofcriminal
conspiracy in alleged escape and killing of Tulsiram Prajapati does not
appealtoreason.

25. Thereisiotaofmaterialonrecordanditisalsothecaseofthe
prosecutionthatonthedateofkillingofTulsiramPrajapati,hewasoneof
the conspirator and present at the spot where Tulsiram Prajapati was
killed.Thus,hisroleinthiscaseisnotlimitedforthespecifiedperiodof
26/12/2006and27/12/2006only,thattooasamemberofescortparty
andhispresenceonthespotofincident.Theprosecutionevidenceprima
facieestablishesthatTulsiramPrajapatiranawayfromthetrainandwas
killedthereafter.

26. Sincechillipowderisnotfoundintheeyesofpoliceofficials
whohadtakenTulsiramPrajapatiforurinationwillinitselftakeawaythe
gravity of the defence version, which speaks about role of this
applicant/accusedlimitedonlyfortakingsaidTulsiramPrajapatiforhis
production in courtfromUdaipur toAhmadabad. Itisthus primafacie
apparent that he was connected in the alleged conspiracy of killing of
TulsiramPrajapatiinallegedstagemanagedencounter.Thus,tomymind,
therebeingprimafaciematerialonrecordagainsthimtoframechargeof
22OrderbelowExh.1338in
S.C.177/2013,178/2013,577/2013
&312/2014

committingconspiracywithothers,heisnotentitledfordischargeasper
section227ofCr.P.C.

27. NowitistobeseenastowhetherpriorsanctionoftheState
Governmenttoprosecutetheapplicantascontemplatedundersection197
of Cr. P. C. was essential. Without repeating the elaborate argument
canvassedbytheLd.Advocatefortheapplicantsufficeittosaythathis
contentionisthatwhateverwasdonebythisapplicantwasdoneinthe
capacity of public servant and pursuant to the directions of superior
officers which forms part and parcel of his duty and therefore prior
sanction was essential. According to him, such prior sanction was
admittedlynotobtainedbyprosecutionwhichshallresultintodroppingof
prosecution.AsagainstthisitissubmittedbytheLd.Prosecutorthatthere
wasnoreasonableconnectionofthefactumofkillingofTulsiramPrajapati
inencounterwiththedutytoapprehendhim;rathertheactandconduct
ofapplicantwasobjectionablewhichwasnotcomingwithinthecolourof
dischargeofofficialdutyandthereforeinsuchmatterpriorsanctionisnot
required.ItisfurthercontendedthatdefencestoryabouttakingTulsiram
PrajapatifromUdaipurjailtoAhmadabadcourtandwhilereturningback
to Udaipur, said Tulsiram Prajapati got escaped and ran away is a
concocted,baselessandimaginarystory.Infact,thereisreliablematerial
againstthisaccused/applicanttoconnecthimatleastasaconspiratorin
thekillingofsaidTulsiramPrajapati.Inviewofsuchfact,askillingofa
personwasnotcomingwithintheambitofdischargeofpublicdutymore
particularlywhenhiskillingwasastagemanagedencounter,questionof
priorsanctionofStateGovernmentagainstthisapplicant/accusedisnot
required and therefore applicant cannot be allowed to take shelter of
section197ofCr.P.C.
23OrderbelowExh.1338in
S.C.177/2013,178/2013,577/2013
&312/2014

28. InthecaseofOmprakshVersusStateofJharkhand((2012)
12 SCC 72) Honble Apex court took note of all its earlier rulings and
observedthat:

The true test as to whether a public servant was

actingorpurportingtoactindischargeofhisduties
wouldbewhethertheactcomplainedofwasdirectly
connectedwithhisofficialdutiesoritwasdoneinthe
dischargeofhisofficialdutiesoritwassointegrally
connected with or attached to his office as to be
inseparable from it. The protection given under
section 197 of the Code has certain limits and is
availableonlywhentheallegedactdonebythepublic
servantisreasonablyconnectedwiththedischargeof
hisofficialdutyandisnotmerelyacloakfordoing
theobjectionableact.Ifindoinghisofficialduty,he
actedinexcessofhisduty,butthereisareasonable
connection between the act and the performance of
the official duty, the excess will not be a sufficient
ground to deprive the public servant of the
protection...

It has been further held by the Honble Apex Court in this

rulingthat:

Unlessunimpeachableevidenceisonrecordtoestablishthat
their action is indefensible, malafide and vindictive, they cannot be
subjected to prosecution. Sanction must be a precondition to their
prosecution.Itaffordsnecessaryprotectiontosuchpolicepersonnel.Plea
regardingsanctioncanberaisedattheinception.

29. Ld. Counsel for the applicant placed reliance on citation

ManoramaTiwariandOthersVs.SurendraNathRaireportedin(2016)1
24OrderbelowExh.1338in
S.C.177/2013,178/2013,577/2013
&312/2014

SC.Case594,aftertakingnoteofconstitutionalbenchrulingincaseof
MatajogDobeyVs.H.C.Bharithat;

Public servants have to be protected from

harassmentinthedischargeofofficialdutieswhile
ordinarycitizensnotsoengageddonotrequirethis
safeguard. It was argued that section 197 of the
Criminal Procedure Code vested an absolutely
arbitrary power in the Government to grant or
withholdsanctionattheirsweetwillandpleasure,
andthelegislaturedidnotlaydownorevenindicate
anyguidingprinciplestocontroltheexerciseofthe
discretion.

Thereis no question of any discrimination

betweenone person andanother inthematter of
takingproceedingsagainstapublicservantforan
actdoneorpurportingtobedoneorpurportingto
bedonebythepublicservantinthedischargeofhis
official duties. No one can take such proceedings
withoutsuchsanctions.

InanotherrulinginStateofH.P.Vs.M.P.Gupta((2004)2
SCC349)theHonbleApexCourtheldthatultimatelyqualityofevidence
appearing against public servant is required to be looked into by the
Court.

Ithasbeenheldthat;

It is the quality of the act which is

important and the protection of this section is
availableiftheactfallswithinthescopeandrange
ofhisofficialduty.Therecannotbeanyuniversal
rule to determine where there is a reasonable
connection between the act done and the official
25OrderbelowExh.1338in
S.C.177/2013,178/2013,577/2013
&312/2014

duty,norisitpossibletolaydownanysuchrule.
Onesafeandsuretestinthisregardwouldbeto
consideriftheomissionorneglectonthepartofthe
public servant to commit the act complained of
could have made him answerable for a charge of
derelictionofhisofficialduty;iftheanswertothis
questionisintheaffirmative,itmaybesaidthat
suchactwascommittedbythepublicservantwhile
actinginthedischargeofhisofficialdutyandthere
was every connection with the act complained of
and the official duty of the public servant. This
aspectmakesitclearthattheconceptofsec.197
doesnotgetimmediatelyattractedoninstitutionof
thecomplaintcase.

30. Keeping in mind ratio held in above citations, let us again

consider the quality of evidence on record against the applicant. It is
elaborately discussed in the11 foregoing paragraphs about the acts of
applicant in the alleged killing of Tulsiram Prajapati in encounter.
Consideringthequalityofmaterialonrecordagainstthisapplicantand
takingintoconsiderationentireprosecutionstory,tomymind,itisclear
thatthereisprimafaciematerialagainstthisaccused/applicanttoconnect
himinthekillingofTulsiramPrajapatimuchlessasoneoftheconspirator.
At the cost of repetition it is reiterated here that role of this
applicant/accusedwasforarestrictedcausei.e.totakeTulsiramPrajapati
fromUdaipurjailtoAhmadabadcourtandreadmithiminUdaipurjail.In
viewofsuchfactandevidenceofhisinvolvementinthekillingofTulsiram
Prajapati, I am of the view that the role attributed against this
accused/applicantasreflectedabovedoesnotdefinitelycomewithinthe
sphere of discharge of his official duty. Consequently, I hold that prior
 26OrderbelowExh.1338in
S.C.177/2013,178/2013,577/2013
&312/2014

sanction to prosecute this accused/applicant was not required as

contemplatedundersection197ofCr.P.C.Admittedly,priorsanctionto
prosecutethisaccused/applicantbeingnotsought,however,prosecution
againsthimcannotbedropped.Ithereforeproceedtopassthefollowing
order.

ORDER

ApplicationExhibit1338isrejected.

(S.J.SHARMA)
Addl.SessionsJudge,
CityCivil&SessionsCourt,
Gr.Mumbai.
Date:20.09.2017

Dictatedon :18.09.2017
Transcribedon :18.09.2017
Signedon :20.09.2017

CERTIFIEDTOBETRUEANDCORRECTCOPYOFTHEORIGINALSIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER

UPLOADDATEANDTIMENAMEOFSTENOGRAPHER
21.09.2017(3.30p.m.)MRS.APARNAV.LELE
(H.G.STENOGRAPHER)

NameoftheJudge(withCourtRoomNo.) ShriS.J.SharmaC.R.No.49
DateofPronouncementofJUDGMENT/ORDER 20.09.2017

JUDGMENT/ORDERsignedbyP.O.on 20.09.2017
JUDGMENT/ORDERuploadedon 21.09.2017at3.30p.m