Delhi District Court
Rakesh Kumar vs . State & Ors. on 10 July, 2008
CR No : 19/08
Rakesh Kumar Vs. State & Ors.
(1)
IN THE COURT OF SHRI B. R. KEDIA ; A.S.J.
TIS HAZARI COURTS ; DELHI
Crl. (R) No : 19/08
Rakesh Kumar
R/o N-129/67,
Khilona Wala Bagh,
Near SBI Colony,
Delhi
..........Petitioner
Versus
1. Govt. of N.C.T of Delhi.
2. S.H.O, P.S. Ashok Vihar,
New Delhi
..........Respondents
Date of institution 17.03.2008
Arguments heard on 10.07.2008
Order delivered on 10.07.2008
O R D E R :-
By virtue of this order, I shall dispose of the instant Criminal Revision, which is directed against the order dt. 11.12.2007 as passed by Ld. M.M. in the case bearing FIR CR No : 19/08 Rakesh Kumar Vs. State & Ors.
(2)No.571/06, P.S. Ashok Vihar, U/S 324 IPC, whereby Ld. M.M was pleased to order for framing of charge for offence U/S 324 IPC as against this accused Rakesh Kumar. So by being aggrieved against the said order of Ld. M.M. the accused Rakesh Kumar has preferred this revision.
2. I have heard Sh. Ajay Kumar, Advocate, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, Ld. Addl. P.P for the State/respondent and perused the relevant record.
3. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that the concerned Ld. M.M has passed the impugned order on charge dt : 11.12.2007 mechanically without proper appreciation of material on record and hence the impugned order deserve to be set aside. It is also added by Ld. counsel that except the complainant Santosh Kumar Verma, there is no other public witness to support the case of the prosecution and concerned Ld. M.M has failed to appreciate this fact. It is CR No : 19/08 Rakesh Kumar Vs. State & Ors.
(3)further added that even otherwise no prima facie material U/S 324 IPC is available on record as against this accused and hence, the charge order deserve to be set aside. It is also added that the concerned Ld. M.M has filled up the cyclostyled proforma and passed the impugned order and hence, deserve to be set aside. It is further added that deficient copies were not supplied to the accused and charge order was passed by Ld. M.M. The Ld. counsel relied upon following judgments in support of his contentions for setting aside the impugned order :
(I) 2005 (1) JCC 31
(ii) 2005 (1) JCC 255
(iii) 2008 (1) CC cases (HC) 39
4. To the contrary, it is submitted by Ld. Addl. P.P for the State that the present revision is devoid of any merits and hence, this revision deserve to be dismissed. It is also added by Ld. Addl. P.P for the State that Ld. M.M has rightly passed CR No : 19/08 Rakesh Kumar Vs. State & Ors.(4)
the charge order and has framed charge U/S 324 IPC against the accused/petitioner herein on proper appreciation of the material on record and hence, this revision deserve to be dismissed.
5. From the perusal of the statement of complainant Santosh Kumar Verma, it is clearly reflected that on 21.07.2006 at about 1 : 00 P.M at Red light, main road, Central Market, Near Nice Restaurant, this accused Rakesh Kumar on having quarrel with complainant on petty issue, caused injury on the person of the complainant by a sharp edged weapon on which he sustained injury and the factum regarding sustaining of injury by the complainant Santosh Kumar Verma is also found corroborated from the medical record as available in the case file.
6. I am of the considered view that on the point of CR No : 19/08 Rakesh Kumar Vs. State & Ors.
(5)hearing on charge, the trial court is not supposed to meticulously examine the case record as if it is conducting trial but merely to form a prima facie view. In the case reported in AIR 1977 SC 2018 "Ramesh Singh Vs. State of Bihar" It was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under : -
'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 charge hearing".
In another case reported as 2003 II AD (Cr.) DHC 437 "Mathura Dass & Ors. Vs. State ". it was observed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that :
" The existence of a prima facie case may be found even on the basis of strong suspicion against an accused. The CR No : 19/08 Rakesh Kumar Vs. State & Ors.(6)
assessment, evaluation and weighing of the prosecution evidence in a criminal case at the final stage is on entirely different footing than it is at the stage framing a charge. At the final stage if two views are possible one of which suggests that the accused may be innocent, then the view favourable for the accused has to be accepted whereas at the stage of framing of the charge; the view which is favourable to the prosecution, has to be accepted for the purpose of framing charge so that in the court of the trial, the prosecution may come with its explanations in regard to the draw-backs and weaknesses, if any, being pointed out by an accused."
In the case reported as 2000 (1) SCC 722, "Kanti Bhadra Shah Vs. State of W.B." it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India to the effect that the trial court is not required to pass any detailed order on the point of charge.
CR No : 19/08 Rakesh Kumar Vs. State & Ors.
(7)
7. In the light of the statement of the complainant Santosh Kumar Verma, forming the basis of FIR, coupled with his medical record and other material as available on the trial court record and taking cue from the aforesaid judgments and applying the same to the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the considered view that the charge order dt. 11.12.07 as passed by ld. M.M cannot be faulted with.
8. From the perusal of the impugned order dt :
11.12.2007, it is also reflected that the deficient copies of the charge sheet was supplied to the accused and application in this respect was disposed of by ld. M.M and therefore, I do not find any force in the submission of Ld. counsel that the deficient copies of the charge sheet were not supplied to the accused before framing the charge. With due respect to the judgments as referred by Ld. counsel for the petitioner, I would like to add here that the same can be of no help for the CR No : 19/08 Rakesh Kumar Vs. State & Ors.(8)
petitioner, in view of the direct incriminating material as available against the petitioner vide statement of the complainant Santosh Kumar Verma, forming the basis of the FIR coupled with his medical record.
9. The net result of the aforesaid discussion is that as I do not find any legal infirmity in the aforesaid charge order dt.11.12.2007 as passed by Ld. M.M, warranting my interference by exercise of revisional jurisdiction, this revision deserve to be dismissed and is ordered accordingly.
10. Let the T.C.R along with the copy of this order be transmitted back to the court of concerned Ld. M.M. and after doing the needful by the Ahlmad of this Court this revision file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court (B.R. Kedia) On 10th July, 2008 Addl. Sessions Judge Tis Hazari Courts Delhi.