Delhi District Court
State vs Vikash Chaudhary & Ors. on 12 July, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. BRIJESH KUMAR GARG:
SPECIAL JUDGE(NDPS)/ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE (NORTH
EAST) : KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
SC 05(I)/2013
FIR 263/2012
PS Jafrabad
Under Section 302/307/201/34 IPC
State Versus Vikash Chaudhary & Ors.
ORDER ON 'CHARGE'
12.07.2013
1.On 06.10.2012, an information was received at PSJafrabad at 10.10 p.m. from police control room, regarding stabbing of a man at Mauzpur Road, Ghonda Chowk. On which, DD No. 42A was recorded at PSJafrabad and was marked to SI Subhash Kumar, who alongwith Ct. Jafruddin went to the spot of incident and found a large number of public persons, present at the spot. It was informed to him that the injured had already been shifted to the GTB hospital by the PCR Van. SI Subhash Kumar left Ct. Jafruddin for guarding the spot and reached GTB hospital and obtained the MLC of injured Vineet Kumar, S/o Shiv Raj. At that time, he was unfit for statement. SI FIR No.263/12 PSJafrabad Page 1 / 9 Subhash Kumar also obtained MLC of another injured Sachin S/o Tej Singh and contacted the injured Sachin. At that time, injured Sachin refused to give the statement to him and thereafter, SI Subhas Kumar returned back to the spot. During enquiries at the spot, he came to know that a quarrel has taken place between the neighbours, on a dispute of car parking. SI Subhash Kumar made endorsement on DD No. 42A and prepared the rukka, on which, the case FIR No. 263/12 was registered at PSJafrabad U/s 307/324/34 IPC. The Crime Team and the photographer was also called to the spot.
2. During investigations, injured Sachin Chaudhary disclosed that on 06.12.2012, at about 9.45 p.m., he was going to take medicine for his uncle (Tau), Shiv Raj Singh, in a car bearing registration No. DL2FGM 0006 and he saw that accused Vishal, Vikas @ Vicky, Vikas @ Andy and Akash were abusing and grappling with Vineet, son of his uncle Shiv Raj Singh. He further stated that he tried to intervene in the dispute and asked the aforesaid accused persons to remove their car, Swift Desire, bearing registration No. DL3CBJ 9495 from the road, on which, accused Vishal, Vikas @ Andy threatened Vineet and called their cousins i.e. accused Manoj and Mukesh. He has further stated that after arrival of accused Manoj and Mukesh, all the accused FIR No.263/12 PSJafrabad Page 2 / 9 persons attacked Vineet with the intention to kill him. Accused Vishal and Vikas @ Vicky caught hold of the hand of Vineet and accused Vikas @ Andy caught hold of Vineet, from his neck and in the meantime, accused Manoj stabbed Vineet with a paper cutter, several times and when he tried to save his cousin Vineet, the accused Mukesh and Akash also attacked him with fists and legs and thereafter, accused Vikas @ Andy hit him with an "Ustra" on his neck, while accused Akash was holding his hand near his head. He has further stated that accused Vikas @ Andy attempted to kill him, with Ustra (knife), which hit him on his left hand.
3. On 08.10.2012, injured Vineet Chaudhary S/o Shiv Raj Singh succumbed to his injuries at GTB hospital, during treatment and thereafter, the inquest proceedings were conducted. During investigations, accused Manoj Chaudhary and Vikas @ Andy were taken on police remand and weapons of offence were also got recovered at their instance.
4. During the investigations, the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased was got conducted and the opinion on the injuries sustained by the deceased, after comparing with the weapons of the offence, was also obtained.
FIR No.263/12 PSJafrabad Page 3 / 9
5. During investigations, witness Rajender Singh S/o Late Kanwar Singh disclosed to the investigating officer that on the date of the incident, he had seen accused Bharat S/o Brij Pal and his wife Krishna @ Babli, washing the blood stains from the parking of their residence. He also handed over a written complaint to the investigating officer on17.11.2012, in this regard.
6. During investigations, the statements of the other witnesses were also recorded and the exhibits were sent to the FSL for analysis and after completion of investigations, the chargesheet was filed and the accused were sent up for trial.
7. The arguments on charge were addressed by Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Ld. APP for the State, Sh. Vishal Kumar, Advocate for accused Vikas and Akash, Sh. Rohit Bhargav, Advocate for accused Manoj and Mukesh and Sh. Sanjeev Bhardwaj, Advocate for accused Vikas @ Vicky, Vishal, Bharat and Krishna.
8. During the course of arguments, the Ld. Defence Counsels for the accused persons, conceded the charges against all the accused persons, except against accused Bharat and Krishna @ Babli, for the offences punishable under Section 307/302/34 IPC.
9. The Ld. Defence Counsel for accused Bharat and Krishna FIR No.263/12 PSJafrabad Page 4 / 9 @ Babli has argued that no prima facie case for any offence was made out against the accused Bharat and Krishna @ Babli. He has argued that these two accused persons were sent up for trial for the offence punishable U/s 201/34 IPC and from the material on record, it is clear that these two accused have been falsely implicated in the present case. He has also argued that Ct. Jafruddin was left by SI Subhash Kumar to safeguard the spot of incident, after the incident and therefore, there was no occasion for the accused persons, to remove the blood stains from the spot. He has also argued that PW Rajender Singh S/o Late Kanwar Singh has been planted later on, only to falsely implicate these two accused persons in the present case.
10. On the other hand, Ld. APP for the State has argued that PW Rajender Singh has given a written complaint to the investigating officer on 17.11.2012, regarding the washing of blood stains by the accused Bharat and Krishna @ Babli and his statement was also recorded by the IO, U/s 161 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the authenticity and correctness of the complaint and the statement of PW Rajender Singh can not be ascertained, by the Court, at this stage and the same is a matter of trial. He has also argued that the Crime Team and the photographer had taken the photographs of the spot, which clearly FIR No.263/12 PSJafrabad Page 5 / 9 indicate that the blood stains have been washed away by these two accused persons, from the parking of their residence.
11. I have carefully gone through the case file and I have also given my considered thoughts to the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsels for the parties.
12. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in case titled as 'Onkar Nath Mishra & Ors. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another', reported as 2008 Cri.L.J. 1391, as under:
11. 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.
12. In State of Karnatake v. L. Muniswamy, (1977)2 SCC 699, a three judge Bench of this Court had observed that at the stage of framing the charge, the Court has to apply its mind to the question whether or not there is any ground for presuming the commission of the offence by the accused.FIR No.263/12 PSJafrabad Page 6 / 9
As framing of charge affects a person's liberty substantially, need for proper consideration of material warranting such order was emphasized.
13. Then again in State of Maharashtra and others v. Sm Nath Thapa and others, 1996(2) RCR (Criminal) 480 :
(1996)4 SCC 659, a three judge Bench of this Court, after noting three pairs of sections viz. (i) Sections 227 and 228 insofar as sessions trial is concerned; (ii) Sections 239 and 240 relatable to trail of warrant cases; and (iii) Sections 245(1) and (2) qua trial of summons cases, which dealt with the question of framing of charge or discharge, stated thus:
"if on the basis of material on record, a court could come to the conclusion that commission of the offence is a probable consequence, a case for framing of charge exists. To put it differently, if the court were to think that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that the accused has committed the offence. It is apparent that at the stage of framing of a charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into; the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage."
14. In a later decision in State of M.P. v.
Mohanlal Soni, 2000(3) RCR(Criminal) 452 : (2000)6 SCC 338, this Court, referring to several previous decisions held that the crystallized judicial view is that at the stage of framing charge, the court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused."
(emphasis supplied by me) FIR No.263/12 PSJafrabad Page 7 / 9
13. In the present case, there are specific allegations against the accused Akash Chaudhary, Manoj, Mukesh, Vishal, Vikash @ Andy and Vikash @ Vickey to make out a prima facie case for the offences punishable U/s 302/307/34 IPC. The material on record, collected by the IO, during investigations, also casts a strong suspicion towards the commission of said offences, by these six accused persons. Accordingly, the charges for the offences punishable U/s 302/307/34 IPC be framed against all the aforesaid six accused persons.
14. Perusal of the record further shows that accused Bharat and Krishna @ Babli have been sent up to face the trial for the offences punishable U/s 201/34 IPC. It is also observed that on 17.11.2012, the IO recorded the statement of PW Rajender Singh S/o Late Kanwar Singh, who alleged that he had seen these two accused persons, washing the blood stains from the parking of their residence. The written complaint of PW Rajender Singh S/o Late Kanwar Singh, in this regard, is also on record.
15. Perusal of the record further shows that during investigations, the Crime Team was also called to the spot and the photographer of the Crime Team had also taken the photographs of the spot and the residence of the accused from various angles. The FIR No.263/12 PSJafrabad Page 8 / 9 photographs placed on record, clearly indicate the presence of blood stains, in the parking of the residence of the accused persons. It also indicates that some blood stains have been washed away, from the staircase.
16. In the circumstances of the present case, as discussed above, and the material on record, I am of the considered opinion that a prima facie case for the offences punishable U/s 201/34 IPC is made out against the accused Bharat and Krishna @ Babli also. Accordingly, the charges for the offences punishable U/s 201/34 IPC be framed against these two accused persons.
It is ordered accordingly.
Announced in the open Court Brijesh Kumar Garg on this 12th day of July, 2013. Special Judge NDPS (NorthEast) ASJ:KKD Courts, Delhi.
FIR No.263/12 PSJafrabad Page 9 / 9