Delhi District Court
Jameela Begum vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 29 July, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. SONU AGNIHOTRI
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE03, SOUTH EAST
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 619/2019
CNR No. DLSE010074962019
JAMEELA BEGUM
W/o Mohd. Hashim
R/o D27, 3rd Flr, Shaheen Bagh,
Thoker No. 8, AFEII,
Jamia Nagar, New Delhi110025.
.... Petitioner
VERSUS
1. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
2. TABASSUM
D/o Abdul Lateef
W/o Sarfarz Ahmad
Presently R/o 4th Floor, B2/1,
Shaheen Bagh,
Jamia Nagar, New Delhi110025.
.... Respondents
Date of institution : 25.09.2019
Date of reserving the order : 29.07.2022
Date of pronouncement : 29.07.2022
CR No. 619/2019 Jameela Begum Vs. State & Anr. Page no....1 of 14
JUDGMENT
1. This is criminal revision u/s 397 r/w Section 399 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure preferred by complainant/petitioner against impugned order dated 01.08.2019 passed by court of Ms. Rajat Goyal, Ld. MM in case FIR No. 721/2017 State Vs. Tabassum, PS Jamia Nagar whereby Ld. Trial Court dismissed protest application moved by petitioner for addition of Section 307/308/201 IPC in the said FIR.
2. In the revision petition, it is stated that respondent No. 2 /accused in present case got married to elder son of petitioner /complainant namely Sarfraz Ahmad on 25.04.2017 in accordance with Muslim Rites and Ceremonies.
3. It is stated that merely after 04 days of marriage, respondent No. 2 started quarreling and altercation with petitioner and other relatives who were visiting on occasion of marriage. Respondent No. 2 always threatened to call her five CR No. 619/2019 Jameela Begum Vs. State & Anr. Page no....2 of 14 brothers to petitioner's house and teach her and family a lesson.
4. It is stated that respondent No. 2 is a short tempered, violent and aggressive lady as she quarreled, slapped and assaulted petitioner on the very 5 th day of her joining matrimonial home while petitioner was talking about marriage ceremonies and rituals performed by her family members as well as themselves but that petitioner's son Sarfaraz Ahmad somehow managed to stop respondent No. 2 and counsel her after which she cooled down. Thereafter, father and brothers of respondent No. 2 came and took her back to their house which is nearby in the next street.
5. It is stated that on 27.10.2017 in night when respondent No. 2 was scolding and abusing petitioner and was repeatedly threatening to hit and beat her, petitioner's elder son Sarfraz was repeatedly calling brothers of respondent No. 2 to come to petitioner's house for talking regarding scene created by their sister but they did not came and one of them asked Sarfaraz to CR No. 619/2019 Jameela Begum Vs. State & Anr. Page no....3 of 14 come in front of Firdous Masjid in street for talking whereupon Sarfaraz requested him to come to his house as respondent No. 2 was furious and could attack petitioner any time but that brother of respondent No. 2 told him that nothing will happen and insisted him to come in front of Firdaus Masjid whereupon Sarfaraz went out to meet respondent's No. 2 brother.
6. It is stated that as soon as Sarfaraz left house, respondent No. 2 again started to shout and abuse petitioner in filthy language and ran towards kitchen, brought knife and thrust knife into petitioner's neck with intention to kill her shouting that "Aaj Hamesha Hamesha Ke Liya Tujhe Chup Kar Doongi".
7. It is stated that petitioner got deep cut on her neck due to which she fell down on floor in pool of blood desperately crying for help. Petitioner's daughter Rubina who had come to visit them from her matrimonial house few days before after delivery of her child rushed to help petitioner. Petitioner's CR No. 619/2019 Jameela Begum Vs. State & Anr. Page no....4 of 14 younger son Shahnawaz who was coming to house of petitioner from his Jaitpur house and was climbing stairs also rushed towards petitioner on hearing her cries and screaming. It is stated that Sarfaraz also returned after meeting brother of respondent No. 2 and petitioner was hurriedly taken to Alshifa Hospital in emergency and PCR call on 100 number was made by younger son of petitioner namely Shahnawaz. Respondent No. 2/ accused ran away from the house with knife.
8. It is stated that in Alshifa Hospital, bandage and dressing was done on petitioner's neck by putting clamped vessel with forceps in order to stop heavy bleeding but doctor told son of petitioner to take her to some big hospital for urgent and immediate treatment as injury was dangerous to life of petitioner.
9. It is stated that thereafter, petitioner was taken to Fortis Escorts Hospital, Okhla Road, New Delhi and was admitted in emergency where exploration of wound and vascular repair of CR No. 619/2019 Jameela Begum Vs. State & Anr. Page no....5 of 14 artery was done on 28.10.2017 and petitioner /complainant was discharged after giving 78 stitches.
10. It is stated that police in connivance with accused / respondent No. 2 and her family lodged FIR No. 721/2017 PS Jamia Nagar in improper section i.e. U/sec 324 IPC instead of Section 307 IPC. It is stated that doctor concerned in MLC of petitioner opined injury of petitioner to be dangerous to her life but that police imposed lighter section and did not bother to recover weapon of offence till date.
11. It is stated that after discharge from hospital, petitioner lodged complaint dated 06.11.2017 with SHO PS Jamia Nagar, DCP and CP, Delhi for registering FIR for offence of attempt to murder and other appropriate sections but no action has been taken against respondent No. 2 till date and therefore petitioner filed complaint U/sec 200 Cr. P. C and Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C which complaint was dismissed in view of Section 210 Cr. P. C and was ordered to be tagged with the charge sheet in present CR No. 619/2019 Jameela Begum Vs. State & Anr. Page no....6 of 14 case.
12. It is stated that respondent No. 2 in order to avoid prosecution in present case has initiated number of false litigations against petitioner and her family i.e. false FIR No. 755/2017 PS Jamia Nagar U/sec 354 IPC, case under PWDV Act and is in the process of getting lodged FIR U/sec 498 A/406 IPC against family of petitioner.
13. It is stated that on 06.07.2018, charge sheet was filed by police in FIR No. 721/2017, PS Jamia Nagar and Ld. Trial Court took cognizance of offence mentioned in FIR and summoned accused /respondent No. 2 for 19.09.2019. On 19.09.2019, respondent No. 2 furnished bail bond the thereafter, charge U/sec 324 IPC was framed against respondent No. 2 on 20.06.2019. However, thereafter, counsel for petitioner appeared before Ld. Trial Court on 20.06.2019 and filed protest petition for adding Section 201/307/308 IPC and other appropriate sections as per law in the FIR and to frame charge CR No. 619/2019 Jameela Begum Vs. State & Anr. Page no....7 of 14 against respondent No. 2 accordingly but which application has been dismissed by Ld. Trial Court vide impugned order.
14. Following grounds have been taken by petitioner to challenge impugned order:
a) Because impugned order is against all canons of law, equity and justice.
b) Because impugned order is based on conjectures and surmises and is not based on correct appreciation of law, facts and material on record.
c) Because Ld. Trial Court failed to consider contents of FIR No. 721/2017, PS Jamia Nagar wherein petitioner has clearly mentioned that respondent No. 2 attacked her with knife on her neck whereafter blood started oozing from neck of petitioner and that intention to kill petitioner is quite clear in these circumstances.
d) Because Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate law laid down by several Hon'ble High Courts and Hon'ble Supreme CR No. 619/2019 Jameela Begum Vs. State & Anr. Page no....8 of 14 Court in catena of judgments wherein it has been held that even if no injury is sustained or minor injury is sustained by complainant, the same has not to be seen and what is important to observe is nature of weapon used and part of body where injury is intended to be inflicted. In present case, respondent No. 2 attacked petitioner on her neck with sharp weapon i.e. knife on vital / critical part of body of petitioner and therefore intention of respondent No. 2 to kill petitioner is writ large and therefore Section 307 /308 IPC alongwith other appropriate sections are required to be added in the FIR and charge is to be framed accordingly.
e) Because Ld. Trial Court failed to consider and apply provisions of Section 307/308/324 IPC and has wrongly framed charge against respondent No. 2 U/sec 324 IPC instead of Section 307/308 IPC.
f) Because as per ingredients of Section 307/308 IPC, nature of injury is not important but what is important is CR No. 619/2019 Jameela Begum Vs. State & Anr. Page no....9 of 14 weapon used in committing the offence and part of body where injury is inflicted and in present case, attempt has been done to cut neck of petitioner with sharp weapon used for cutting and therefore intention of respondent No. 2 to kill petitioner is crystal clear.
g) Because impugned order is unsustainable as Ld. Trial Court failed to consider that dangerous injury has been sustained by petitioner on vital part of her body.
h) Because Ld. Trial Court failed to consider MLC of petitioner wherein doctor has opined nature of injury to be dangerous.
i) Because Ld. Trial Court failed to consider disclosure statement of respondent No. 2 wherein she herself has admitted to have given fatal injury on neck of petitioner.
j) Because Ld. Trial Court failed to examine the charge sheet and documents collected by IO wherein connivance of respondent No. 2 and IO is crystal clear.
CR No. 619/2019 Jameela Begum Vs. State & Anr. Page no....10 of 14
15. It is prayed to call and examine TCR and set aside impugned order.
16. I have heard arguments addressed by counsel for petitioner, Ld. Additional PP for State and respondent No. 2 and perused record including trial court record.
17. Perusal of Trial Court Record shows that injury of petitioner in her MLC has been opined to be dangerous though at one place noting of injury as simple dangerous has also been made though it is beyond comprehension that how a dangerous injury can be simple as there are different classifications of injuries i.e. simple / grievous / dangerous. However, it is not the stage to comment regarding the same and it can be clarified during course of evidence of concerned doctor. Sufficient is to state that nature of injury suffered by petitioner is dangerous in nature.
18. It is settled proposition that in offence U/sec 307 IPC, all the ingredients of offence of murder are present except death of CR No. 619/2019 Jameela Begum Vs. State & Anr. Page no....11 of 14 the victim. As such, where ingredients of Section 300 IPC are lacking, accused cannot be charged or convicted for offence U/sec 307 IPC. It is also well settled that for applying Section 307 IPC, it is not necessary that injury capable of causing death should have been actually inflicted. Section 307 IPC requires an inquiry into intention and knowledge of accused and whether or not by his act, he intended to cause death which would amount to murder as defined U/sec 300 IPC. It depends upon facts and circumstances of each case as to whether accused had intention to cause death or knew the circumstances that his act was going to cause death. The nature of weapon used, the intention expressed by accused at the time of the act, the motive, nature and size of injuries and parts of body of victim where injuries were inflicted and severity of blow or blows are relevant factors to determine intention or knowledge of accused.
19. In this case, respondent No. 2 allegedly attacked petitioner with knife over her neck and injury as a result of CR No. 619/2019 Jameela Begum Vs. State & Anr. Page no....12 of 14 which attack has been opined to be dangerous by doctor concerned. Neck is vital part of one's body and knife in any circumstances is a dangerous weapon and to cause dangerous injury with dangerous weapon over vital part of body of injured clearly reflects intention of assailant. I am of the view that charge U/sec 307 IPC besides Section 201 IPC are clearly made out against accused /respondent No. 2 (Section 201 IPC is attracted as weapon of offence has not been got recovered by accused /respondent No. 2 and act of throwing weapon of offence as per disclosure statement of accused /respondent No. 2 will prima facie amount to causing disappearance of evidence of offence ).
20. Ld. Trial Court in impugned order dated 01.08.2019 has not discussed any logical reason for dismissing protest petition of petitioner and only reason given is that on basis of material available on record, charge U/sec 324 IPC has already been framed against accused and there is no ground for framing CR No. 619/2019 Jameela Begum Vs. State & Anr. Page no....13 of 14 charge U/sec 307 IPC against accused. Order passed by Ld. Trial Court is bereft of any logical reasoning and thus cannot be sustained.
21. In view of my abovemade discussion, I am of the view that revision petition filed by petitioner deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. Charge u/sec 307/201 IPC deserves to be framed against accused /respondent No. 2.
22. Let copy of this judgment be sent to Ld. Trial Court alongwith TCR.
Dictated and Announced (Sonu Agnihotri)
in the open court ASJ03 (SouthEast),
on 29.07.2022 Saket Courts, Delhi
CR No. 619/2019 Jameela Begum Vs. State & Anr. Page no....14 of 14