Mere Presence at Crime Scene Without Overt Act or Proof of Abetment Cannot Justify Criminal Trial.

The applicant was arrayed as Accused No. 3 in Sessions Case No. 222 of 2016, arising from an FIR registered under Sections 307 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act

The prosecution alleged that Accused No. 1 opened fire, and the applicant (nephew of Accused No. 1) was present at the spot

The applicant filed a discharge application (Exh. 15), which was rejected by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) on September 1, 2018, on the grounds that Section 114 IPC might be attracted and the case did not fall under the "rarest of rare" category

The applicant moved the High Court in revision to quash this order and seek exoneration.

1. Whether the mere presence of the applicant at the scene of the crime, without any overt act or evidence of instigation, is sufficient to attract criminal liability for abetment under Section 114 of the IPC

2. Whether the trial court erred in refusing discharge by failing to identify a prima facie case or factual nexus linking the applicant to the alleged crime

The court applied the principles of criminal jurisprudence regarding "discharge," which serves as a constitutional safeguard ensuring no individual undergoes a trial without a judicially recognizable threshold of a prima facie case

It specifically interpreted Section 114 of the IPC (Abettor present when offence is committed), read with the definition of abetment under Section 107, which requires conduct or action intentionally aiding or facilitating the principal offender

Furthermore, the court clarified that the "rarest of rare" doctrine is irrelevant to the determination of a discharge application

The High Court observed that the investigation papers and witness statements (specifically that of Mohammed Subhan) attributed the act of firing solely to Accused No. 1

The court found that the applicant’s presence at the scene was "natural" as he was the nephew of Accused No. 1 and lived there

Critically, the prosecution failed to provide "an iota of evidence" suggesting any overt act, conduct, or intention to aid/facilitate the crime

The court reasoned that since the basic ingredients of Sections 107 and 114 were lacking and the factual nexus was missing, the charges against the applicant were "groundless"

It held that the Sessions Judge committed a manifest error by rejecting the discharge application without identifying specific material against the applicant

The court quashed and set aside the order dated September 1, 2018, passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural)

Consequently, the applicant was exonerated from all charges in Sessions Case No. 222 of 2016, and the connected stay application was disposed of