Delhi District Court
State vs . Pradeep @ Sonu Etc. on 28 August, 2012
State Vs. Pradeep @ Sonu Etc.
SC No. 66/12
FIR No. 18/12
PS: Delhi Cantt.
IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIJAY KUMAR DAHIYA
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE : DWARKA COURTS:
NEW DELHI
In the matter of :
State Vs. Pradeep @ Sonu Etc.
SC No. 66/12
FIR No. 18/12
PS: Delhi Cantt.
ORDER ON THE POINT OF CHARGE
1.Arguments on the point of charge have already been advanced by Ld. Defence Counsels on behalf of their respective accused persons as well as Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor. I have also perused the entire record and carefully considered the matter.
2. As per the prosecution story, on 17.01.2012, Shri Tejas Uday Mithani, the complainant, got recorded his statement and thereafter, supplementary statement stating therein that he is working as a manager in Shri Sai Tours & Travels, 36 DDA Auto Complex, Jamrudpur and on 17.01.2012 at about 6.30 p.m., he alongwith his driver Shri Nand Kishore was going to his company garage at Jamrudpur in his company car Accent bearing no. DL1N3591 on the back seat of which, a bag containing Rs. 9 lacs, -:1:- State Vs. Pradeep @ Sonu Etc. SC No. 66/12 FIR No. 18/12 PS: Delhi Cantt.
for paying the salary of staff, was lying. Complainant further stated that at about 7.15 p.m., when their car reached at Air Force Road, little ahead to Hanuman Mandir, a motorcycle, on which two boys were sitting, over took them from right side and stopped in front of their car. Thereafter, driver Nand Kishore got down from the car and went to those boys accosting them as to why they were not riding the motorcycle properly on which those boys started misbehaving and one of the boy took out a katta (countrymade pistol) and started beating the driver Nand Kishore with fists and blows. On seeing this, complainant also took his one step out from the car and asked those boys as to why they were beating the driver, then suddenly one another motorcycle, make Pulsar and one car came there and stopped, and two boys got down from the motorcycle and came towards the complainant and slapped the complainant.
3. It is further alleged that in the mean, two boys from car of the accused persons also got down and started the motorcycle. One boy came to the complainant and opened the back door of his car and when complainant tried to resist the same, the said boy again slapped him. When driver Nand Kishore saw that complainant was also being beaten by those assailants, he tried to escape him but the person who was having katta in his hand, hit the driver Nand Kishore on his head and so he could not reach to the complainant. The boys who were beating the complainant -:2:- State Vs. Pradeep @ Sonu Etc. SC No. 66/12 FIR No. 18/12 PS: Delhi Cantt.
took out the bag containing money, two mobile phones and some company's document. Thereafter, all the boys sat on the two motorcycles, three on each, and ran away from there towards Palam and the said car also followed them. Complainant had noted down the registration number of one of the motorcycle i.e. DL8C3464. Complainant further asked his driver to chase those persons but driver said that those persons had even taken away the keys of car. The complainant saw that one piece of wood in which iron pins were imbedded and one half brick were lying in front of the car. On the basis of complaint, case was registered and during investigation all the six accused persons namely, Pradeep @ Sonu, Raju Thapa, Raj Kumar, Vivek Verma @ Sonu, Surjeet and Vicky K.C. were found to be involved in the commission of the offence and accordingly they were arrested and there disclosure statement was recorded vide which they stated that they had done reiki of complainant with the help of driver i.e. accused Raj Kumar, who was working with Shri Sai Travels Company, and on 17.01.2012, accused Vicky @ Vivek Rana on his Pulsar motorcycle on which accused Vicky K.C. was sitting at a pillion seat, chased the complainant's car throughout the day and when car of the complainant's reached Hanuman Mandir red light, accused Pradeep @ Sonu came on motorcycle, make Avenger, bearing no. DL6SAC3464 and accused Raju Thapa was sitting on the pillion seat of the said motorcycle and stopped the way of the complainant and when driver of the car of the -:3:- State Vs. Pradeep @ Sonu Etc. SC No. 66/12 FIR No. 18/12 PS: Delhi Cantt.
complainant got down from the car, they started beating him and even hit him on his head with the but of countrymade pistol. Accused persons further disclosed that accused Vicky K.C. had slapped the complainant and took out the bag containing money of Rs. 9 lacs and all the four accused persons and also the car which was being driven by accused Surjeet, and other accused Sonu @ viek and accused Raj Kumar, the driver of company, were sitting, ran away from the spot. After making recovery in terms of the disclosure statements made by the accused persons, I.O. prepared the chargesheet and filed the same in the Court.
4. On bare perusal of the chargesheet, Ld. State Counsel has contended that prima facie offence against the accused persons are made out and further more recovery has been effected at their very instance so charges against the accused persons be framed as per law.
5. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons have contended that there is no evidence on the record to connect the accused persons with the alleged offence and the present case has been planted on the accused persons and they have been implicated in another FIR bearing no. 42/12, under Section 399/412 IPC r/w Section 25/27 Arms Act, dated 21.02.2012 in which they have already been released on bail and in order to crack the present dacoity, they have been planted by the I.O. in the -:4:- State Vs. Pradeep @ Sonu Etc. SC No. 66/12 FIR No. 18/12 PS: Delhi Cantt.
present case and the accused persons deserve to be discharged from all the alleged offences.
6. It is settled law that at the stage of framing of charge, the court has only to take a prima facie view and not to minutely examine the material. In a recent judgment Onkar Nath Mishra & Ors. Vs. State ( NCT of Delhi) & Anr. 2008(1)JCC 65 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed :
"It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclosed the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At that stage, the court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record. What needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. At that stage, even strong suspicion founded on material which leads the court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged would justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence."
7. In another case reported as Palwinder Singh Vs. -:5:- State Vs. Pradeep @ Sonu Etc. SC No. 66/12 FIR No. 18/12 PS: Delhi Cantt.
Balwinder Singh , Cr. Appeal, No. 1681/2008, the Supreme Court ruled that :
'the jurisdiction of the learned Sessions Judge while exercising power under section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is limited. Charges can be framed also on the basis of strong suspicion. Marshalling and appreciation of evidence is not in the domain of the Court at that point of time.'
8. In the case of State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh, AIR 1977 SC 2018 it was held as under:
"at the beginning and the initial stage of the trial, the truch, veracity and effect of the evidence which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. Nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused. It is not obligatory for the Judge at that stage of the trial to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The standard of test and Judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or, otherwise, of the accused is not exactly to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter under -:6:- State Vs. Pradeep @ Sonu Etc. SC No. 66/12 FIR No. 18/12 PS: Delhi Cantt.
Section 277 or Section 228 of the Code. At that stage the Court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage, if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."
9. Recovery has been effected from all the accused persons in terms of the disclosure statements, except accused Surjeet who was allegedly driving the car used in the commission of offence. From bare perusal of the chargesheet, it has transpired by the accused persons including accused Surjeet that they were having dialogues on their respective phone numbers in the vicinity of the area where the dacoity has taken place. The contentions as raised by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons, are not to be taken into consideration as they require meticulous examination of the evidence to be led by the prosecution.
10. For all these reasons, I am satisfied that prima facie charge under section 394/395/120B, 394/34 and 395 IPC against -:7:- State Vs. Pradeep @ Sonu Etc. SC No. 66/12 FIR No. 18/12 PS: Delhi Cantt.
the accused persons Pradeep @ Sonu, Raju Thapa @ Rohit, Raj Kumar, Vivek Verma @ Sonu, Surjeet and Vicky K.C., AND section 397 IPC against the accused Raju Thapa @ Rohit AND section 412 IPC against accused Pradeep @ Sonu, Raj Kumar, Vivek Verma @ Sonu, Vicky K.C. And Raju Thapa @ Rohit are attracted. Charge framed accordingly to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
11. Put up for PE on 25.09.2012 and 26.09.2012.
Announced in the open court (Vijay Kumar Dahiya) on the 28th Day August of 2012 ASJ/ Dwarka Courts New Delhi/28.08.2012 -:8:-