Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Anil Sharma vs The State on 20 May, 2011

       IN  THE  COURT  OF  SH. R.B. SINGH,  ASJ, 03­OUTER,
                       ROHINI  COURTS,  DELHI


Crl. Appeal No.   02/11 & 04/11
                       Anil Sharma V/s The State
                                  &
                    Prem Singh & Others Vs. Stage 

                                  O R D E R

1. By this common order, I shall dispose of two Revision Petitions namely CR No. 02/11 entitled as Anil Sharma Vs. State & CR No. 04/11 entitled as Prem Singh & other Vs. State as both of the criminal Revisions require common discussion.

2. Ld. Counsel Sh. Minocha for the Revisionist Anil Sharma has submitted that the present Revision Petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 27.01.2011 passed by Sh. Manish Khurana, Ld. MM, Rohini Courts, Delhi thereby charging the accused persons U/S 223/225 r/w section 120B IPC. The brief facts of the case are that on 21.03.99, a complaint was lodged by ASI Jagat Singh of Haryana Police in PS Kashmiri Gate, stating that one Sanjay Sharma who was lodged in Rohtak Jail (Haryana) was brought to Patiala House Court to attend his hearing in his another matter. Sanjay Sharma was accompanied by Ct. Prem Crl. Appeal No. 02/11 & 04/11 1/7 Singh and Ct. Braham Singh. After attending his hearing in Patiala House courts while on his way back to Rohtak Jail, these persons boarded the blue line bus from Patiala House Courts to I.S.B.T. At around 4.30 PM on 20.03.99, when the bus reached near I.S.B.T., Sanjay Sharma escaped from the custody of these constables while pushing them and freeing himself out of their grip. Thereafter, Sanjay Sharma embarks on a white Maruti car and disappeared towards Tis Hazari Courts side. Both the constables tried to follow this accused but failed. Consequently, FIR no. 127/99 U/S 224 IPC was registered in PS Kashmiri Gate. During the investigation and on the basis of PCR call that was made by Smt. Krishna Sharma on 20.03.99, it was found that the accused Sanjay Sharma escaped from D­4/30, Sector­15, Rohini, Delhi. Subsequently, section 223 IPC was also added and Constables Prem Singh and Braham Singh were arrested. On 28.10.99, FIR no. 406/99 U/S 223/224 IPC of PS Prashant Vihar was registered and subsequently, the petitioner was arrested on 18.12.99 and was released on bail. After the completion of investigation, charge­sheet was filed against the Petitioner and the other co­accused persons. On 27.01.2011, Sh. Manish Khurana, Ld. MM, Rohini Courts, Delhi has framed a charge U/S Crl. Appeal No. 02/11 & 04/11 2/7 223/225/120B IPC. The petitioner feeling aggrieved from the impugned order has filed the present Revision Petition with the grounds:

That the impugned order dated 27.01.2011 whereby petitioner has been charged is not proper, justified and against the law as the Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that there is complete lack of evidence against the petitioner.
That the Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that if the petitioner or her mother were conspirators in escaping of Sanjay Sharma the only thing that they have to do was to keep mum and not to call the police as they did.
That the Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the petitioner has already suffered ignominy of facing the trial court proceedings for past more than 11 years and no purpose would be served to conduct the evidence which will ultimately be a futile exercise.
Hence, it is prayed that the order dated 27.01.2011 passed by Sh. Manish Khurana, Ld. MM, Rohini Courts, Delhi may be set Crl. Appeal No. 02/11 & 04/11 3/7 aside.
3. Ld. Counsel for the Revisionist has also filed following case laws:
1. 1999 CRI.L.J. 3124, State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Nalini & others.
2. JCC (SC) 10, Sanju Vs. State of Kerala.
3. 1998 (1) JCC (SC) 73, CBI Vs. V.C. Shukla & Ors.
4. 1995 (1) Supreme Court Cases 142 P.K. Narayanan Vs. State of Kerala.
5. 1999 CRI.L.J. 1807, Smt. Leela Das Vs. Union of India & others.
4. Sh. Rathi, Ld. Counsel for the Revisionists namely Prem Singh and Braham Singh has also submitted that Ld. Trial Court vide its order dated 27.01.2011 framed charges U/S 223/225/120B IPC against the revisionists without taking into consideration the law, facts, circumstances and submissions of the revisionists. A great irreparable loss, harm and injustice has been caused to the revisionists and feeling aggrieved with the impugned order, the revisionists have preferred the present Revision Petition on the following grounds: Crl. Appeal No. 02/11 & 04/11 4/7
That the Ld. Trial court has failed to appreciate that there is no material on record to connect the revisionists with the commission of alleged offences.
That the accused Sanjay Sharma was handed over to both the revisionists even without a handcuff and also the revisionists were not provided with any weapon. The revisionist who are police officials have no role in absconding of the accused Sanjay Sharma. There is not material evidence which shows that the revisionists have conspired in the commission of the alleged offence and the revisionists have made scapegoat in the present case and they are totally innocent and become victim of circumstances.
Under these circumstances, it is prayed that the impugned order dated 27.01.2011 passed by Sh. Manish Khurana, Ld. MM, Rohini Courts, Delhi, may be set aside in the interest of justice.
5. On the contrary, Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State has submitted that the impugned order dated 27.01.2011 of Ld. MM, Rohini Courts, Crl. Appeal No. 02/11 & 04/11 5/7 Delhi do not call for any interference and both the Revision Petitions are liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is, prayed that both the Revision Petitions may be dismissed being devoid of any merits.
6. I have heard Ld. Counsel Sh. Minocha for the Revisionist Anil Sharma, Ld. Counsel Sh. Rathi for the Revisionist Prem Singh etc. and Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State and perused the material on the record including the case law filed carefully.
7. After hearing arguments and on the perusal of the material on the record including the trial court record, I am of the considered opinion that prima facie offences U/S 223/225/120B IPC are made out against the revisionists as the the law on the aspect is crystal clear that if there is a grave suspicion of the complicity of the accused persons in a particular offence, the order of discharge cannot be passed. The considerations which might be available to the accused persons at the conclusion of trial can not be given at the stage of framing of the charge. Even the evidence on the record is not to be viewed so meticulously at the stage of framing of charge. The framing of charge even does not mean that Crl. Appeal No. 02/11 & 04/11 6/7 ultimately the case will result in conviction of the accused persons. At the stage of framing of charge, the court has to see the prima facie case only and to see whether there exist strong suspicion against the accused persons for any particular offence.

Since the prima­facie offences U/S 223/225/120B IPC are made out against all the revisionists, the order dated 27.01.2011 passed by Sh. Manish Khurana, Ld. MM, Rohini Courts, Delhi, do not call any interference and the Revision Petitions are liable to be dismissed. Consequently, both the Revision Petitions are dismissed. The trial court record along with a copy of this order be sent to the Ld. Trial Court with the direction to the Revisionists to appear in the concerned court on 02.06.2011 at 2.00 PM. Both the Revision Petition files be consigned to record room. Announced and dictated in the open court today on 20.05.2011 R.B. SINGH ASJ, 03 (Outer) Rohini Courts, Delhi/20.05.2011 Crl. Appeal No. 02/11 & 04/11 7/7