Delhi District Court
Cr No. 506/17 Anil Rathi & Anr vs . State on 19 February, 2018
CR No. 506/17 Anil Rathi & anr Vs. State
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAUTAM MANAN, ASJ(SFTC)
SOUTH WEST, DWARKA ,NEW DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 506/17
In the matter of:
1. Anil Rathi
S/o Daya Chand
R/o Village Rathiwas PS,
Maneshar Distt. Gurgaon
Haryana.
2. Shri Lakhpat Singh
S/o Mange Ram,
R/o Village Rathiwas PS,
Maneshar Distt. Gurgaon
Haryana.
... Revisionists
Versus
State ...Respondent
Date of institution of revision : 06.11.2017
Date on which judgment reserved : 19.02.2018
Date on which judgment pronounced : 19.02.2018
ORDER
1. Revision petition u/s 397 Cr.P.C is directed on behalf of revisionists Anil Rathi & Lakhpat Singh against the order dated 06.10.2017 passed by Ld. Trial Court in case titled as "State Vs. Anil Rathi & Others", in case FIR No. 580/16, PS Uttam Nagar whereby Ld. Trial Court directed to fame charge for the offence punishable u/s 365/506/323/392/34 IPC against revisionists. Criminal Revision Page 1 of 8
CR No. 506/17 Anil Rathi & anr Vs. State
2. During course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for revisionists apprised that unfortunately revisionist/accused Anil Rathi has got expired and as such he is not pressing revision petition for him.
3. Impugned order is challenged on behalf of revisionist on the ground that the Ld. Trial Court while framing charge against revisionist did not consider material on record as well as statement of victim recorded U/s 164 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that Ld Trial Court overlooked statement of victim recorded U/s 164 Cr.P.C wherein victim himself exonerated revisionist.
4. On the other hand, Learned Additional PP for State submits that in view of statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein victim supported the prosecution case, revisionist could not have been discharged merely on the basis of the statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is stated the order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.
5. I have heard the rival submissions and have gone through the Trial Court Record.
Criminal Revision Page 2 of 8
CR No. 506/17 Anil Rathi & anr Vs. State
6. Brief facts of the case are that FIR in question was registered on the complaint of brother of victim who alleged that his brother Praveen Kumar Gupta was kidnapped on 04.07.2016 and victim informed his brother that he is kidnapped by the person whom he picked near Bilaspur. Key of the car driven by him was forcibly snatched from victim. Investigations were taken up and IO went to Police Post Khori, Haryana where victim was found with revisionists.
7. IO recorded statement of victim u/s 161 Cr. P.C. wherein he stated that he runs a taxi. Accused Rohit boarded his taxi and told him to proceed towards Kharkhoda, Haryana. Victim stated that Rohit took key of car from him and when victim resisted, Rohit threatened him that he is having pistol and has relations with goons due to which he handed the key of the car to Rohit. Rohit then brought liquor and kept drinking it and also hit a bullock cart due to which his car got damaged. Victim alleged that accused Rohit took him to his in-laws house at Chorasi Village but his in-laws did not open the door and then Rohit again purchased liquor. At about 11.00 am, Rohit took him to his friend's Anil Rathi's house and then Anil Rathi and Lakhpat Singh (revisionists) sat in the car. All of them consumed liquor and they snatched Rs. 500-600 from him and gave Criminal Revision Page 3 of 8 CR No. 506/17 Anil Rathi & anr Vs. State beatings and threatened to kill him. Thereafter, they filled fuel in the car, Rohit leaving revisionists ran away. Anil Rathi and Lakhpat were drunk and then finally victim called his family members and then he was got released from them. Victim stated that Rohit, Anil Rathi and Lakhpat Singh, have beaten and confined him and as such action be taken against them. On the statement of victim, revisionists were arrested. Their disclosure statements were recorded.
8. Statement of victim was also got also recorded u/s 164 Cr. P.C. and loose English Translation of relevant portion of the statement u/s 164 Cr. P.C. reads as under:-
"...... then Rajbir picked his friends Anil Rathi and Lakhpat Singh. They asked me that how come, I was with him. I told them I am taxi driver and Rohit is not releasing me. I requested both of them to allow him to go with car but Rohit did not agree as he was having the key of the car with him and steering was also in his hands. He was heavily drunk. His friends were also drunk. Rohit kept on roaming from one place to other. His friends were trying to make him understand. Rohit gave beatings to them as well as to me. Fuel ended and then Rohit snatched money and asked for ATM. I stated that I am not having ATM. Rohit then stated that he will refill the petrol and then we will go back. He demanded money from villagers. Nobody helped. Then somebody called police. During this time, my family members got registered my missing complaint. Rohit had threatened me to hit me and will fire upon me. On my phone I received call from Haryana police. Mobile was snatched by Rohit. Rohit had already pushed his friends out of the car. Rohit told police officials that petrol is ended....."Criminal Revision Page 4 of 8
CR No. 506/17 Anil Rathi & anr Vs. State
9. From statement recorded u/s 164 Cr. P.C., it is evident that victim stated that friends of co-accused Rohit, namely Anil Rathi and Lakhpat Singh (revisionists) after sitting in the car were trying to make accused Rohit understand but Rohit not only gave beatings to victim but to revisionists as well. As per the statement, Rohit already pushed revisionists out of the car. From the entire statement recorded u/s 164 Cr. P.C. it is evident that victim has not made any allegations against Anil Rathi and Lakhpat Singh, rather role attributed to them was to make Rohit understand of his acts and trying to pacify him.
10. Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported as 2010 (9) SCC 368 Sajjan Kumar Vs CBI after considering various decisions of Supreme Court, summarized the principles with respect to scope of Sections 227 & 228 of Cr.P.C. as under:
21. On consideration of the authorities about the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles emerge:
(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 CrPC has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case.Criminal Revision Page 5 of 8
CR No. 506/17 Anil Rathi & anr Vs. State
(ii) Where materials placed before court disclose grave suspicion against accused which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
(iii) The court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities, etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.
(iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence.
(v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible.
(vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case.
(vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal.Criminal Revision Page 6 of 8
CR No. 506/17 Anil Rathi & anr Vs. State
11. Present is not a case where there are some material changes or improvements or differences from the statements on the basis of which FIR was registered and recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C rather statement of victim recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C is wholly inconsistent with his statement recorded U/s 164 Cr.P.C which was recorded by Ld MM after verifying the voluntariness of victim to make the statement and that he is not under threat or coercion.
12. As per the statement recorded U/s 164 Cr.P.C. victim himself stated that revisionist was trying to pacify co-accused Rohit.
Even during trial the two statements, that is, one recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C and other under Section 164 Cr.P.C are not reconcilable. Distinction between the two being so severe that even without a roving and fishing inquiry it can safely be held that at this stage itself there is no strong suspicion to proceed against revisionist. As held by the Supreme Court, even at the stage of framing of charge, the Court has not to act as the mouthpiece of the prosecution but should examine the broad probabilities of case. Criminal Revision Page 7 of 8
CR No. 506/17 Anil Rathi & anr Vs. State
13. In his statement recorded u/s 164 Cr. P.C. victim himself stated that revisionist was trying to pacify co-accused Rohit but Rohit did not understand rather he pushed them out of the car as such allegations of robbing, kidnapping, threatening or beating victim by the revisionist cannot be sustained. Revisionist Lakhpat Singh is entitled to be discharged.
14. Accordingly, revisionist Lakhpat stands discharged in case FIR No. 580/16, PS Uttam Nagar. He is directed to furnish a bond u/s 437-A Cr. P.C. in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of the like amount before the Ld. Trial Court. Ld. Trial Court shall proceed further in accordance with law against other accused persons. Revision petition qua Lakhpat Singh stands allowed in aforesaid terms.
Trial Court record be sent back along with copy of the order. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court on 19th February, 2018.
Digitally signed (GAUTAM MANAN) GAUTAM by GAUTAM ASJ (SFTC) /SOUTH WEST MANAN MANAN Date: 2018.02.20 DWARKA: DELHI 15:02:58 +0530 Criminal Revision Page 8 of 8