ASHOK MARIAPPA DEDHE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule.

(2.) Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the learned Counsel for both the parties, petition is taken up for final hear ing immediately.

(3.) Prosecution case in brief, is that the present petitioner, who is accused No. 11 was driver of Sumo Jeep bearing No. MH-14-G-5375 belonging to his brother. That sumo jeep was hired by the accused Nos. 1 to 7 from Pune and the present petitioner was driving the said Sumo jeep. The said sumo jeep chased the truck bearing No. TN-34-B-9131 from Hupri Kolhapur on Satara pune Road and obstructed the said truck by stopping the Sumo jeep in front of the said truck near village Varve and forced the truck driver to stop it. After that the accused Nos. 1 to 7 threatened and beat the driver of the said truck. After that the truck was driven towards the road of Varve village and the door of the container of the said truck was broken open by the accused nos. 1 to 7 with the help of accused Nos. 9 and 10, who were cleaner and driver of the said truck. After breaking open the door of the container, silver ornaments weighing 30 kg. 89 gms, and other articles weighing 13 kg. , worth Rs. 1,51,000/- were robbed. Stolen property was sold by accused No. 7 to accused No. 8. During the investigation of the case, property was recovered from the accused No. 8 at the instance of accused no. 7. After investigation charge-sheet is filed and the case is committed to the Court of Sessions, against 11 accused persons including the truck driver and the leaner being accused Nos. 9 and 10 and the present petitioner, who was driver of Sumo jeep. Accused Nos. 9 and 10 made an application for discharge and it was allowed. The present petitioner also filed an application for discharge on the principle of parity but that application came to be rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune rejecting defence of the accused and observing that whether the accused had no common intention with the other accused, is a question which is to be decided only at the time of trial and after considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses on their cross-examination. Being aggrieved by the rejection of application, petitioner filed the present writ petition.