Delhi District Court
Sandeep Kumar vs State on 18 November, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. MANISH KHURANA:
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04: WEST DISTRICT
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
CNR No.DLWT01-009160-2019
Crl. Rev. No. 420/2019
Sandeep Kumar
S/o Sh. Roshan Lal
R/o A-1/241, Paschim Vihar,
Delhi-110063 ............. Revisionist
Vs.
1. State
2. Sh. Dinesh Kumar
S/o Sh. Roshan Lal,
R/o A-1/241, Paschim Vihar,
Delhi-110063
3. Sh. Sudhir Kumar
S/o Sh. Roshan Lal,
R/o A-1/241, Paschim Vihar,
Delhi-110063 ......... Respondents
Date of Institution of case : 18.11.2019
Date of decision : 18.11.2022
Decision : Dismissed
JUDGMENT
1. This is the revision petition u/s 397 Cr.PC filed by the revisionist for setting aside order of charge dated 06.06.2019 and the formal charge Crl. Rev. No. 420/19 Sandeep Kumar Vs. State & Ors Page no. 1 of 8 which was framed vide order dated 06.08.2019 by Ld MM-10/West/Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi vide which charges for the offences u/s 323/325/34 IPC & u/s 509/34 IPC have been ordered to be framed against the revisionist Sandeep Kumar.
2. I have already heard arguments on the present revision petition and perused the record.
3. Brief facts of the present petition that the case FIR No. 321/16, PS Paschim Vihar was registered pursuant to the directions of Ld MM u/s 156(3) Cr.PC vide order dated 25.07.2016 and after conclusion of investigation, the chargesheet was filed before Ld MM and after supplying the copies, the arguments on charge were heard by Ld MM- 10/West/THC on 26.04.2019 and vide impugned order dated 06.06.2019, Ld MM ordered to frame the charges u/s 323/325/506/34 IPC against all the accused persons namely Roshan Lal, Sandeep Kumar (revisionist herein), Deepak Kumar and Poonam and listed the matter for 06.08.2019 for formal framing of charges and on 06.08.2019, Ld MM-10/West/THC framed the charges u/s 323/325/34 IPC against all the accused persons including the revisionist herein and also framed the charge u/s 509/34 IPC against accused Sandeep Kumar (revisionist herein) and Roshan Lal.
4. Vide instant revision petition, the revisionist/accused Sandeep Kumar has challenged the framing of charges u/s 323/325/34 IPC & 509/34 IPC against him and it is alleged that the investigation which was conducted by the police was biased and it was merely an eyewash in order to shield the complainant. It is alleged that the IO did not investigate the matter properly and he did not collect various evidences and ignored the presence of exculpatory material and thus the right of fair trial had been Crl. Rev. No. 420/19 Sandeep Kumar Vs. State & Ors Page no. 2 of 8 denied to the revisionist. It is alleged that the biased investigation is evident from the fact that the chargesheet is a mere reproduction of the complaint and that no statement of medical personnel in respect of nature of injuries sustained by the accused persons was recorded and that there is no independent witness to the alleged incident despite the fact that the incident occurred on road on Diwali night at 9.00 pm and that no investigation was done despite contradictions in the complaint and the statement of the complainant u/s 161 Cr.PC.
5. It is alleged that the accused/revisionist Sandeep Kumar suffered grievous injuries in the scuffle, however, the same were concealed and were not investigated upon by the IO in the present case. It is further alleged that Ld Trial Court mechanically framed the charges without appreciating the material facts and circumstances and without considering that the complaint given by the complainant was an afterthought and a counter blast to the complaint filed by Roshan Lal on 12.11.2015. It is further alleged that the complainant has made false and vague averments and that the accused/revisionist Sandeep and Roshan Lal have been charged for the offence u/s 509/34 IPC for allegedly uttering offensive words whereas there is no clear averment as to who allegedly uttered those words. It is further alleged that bare reading of the complaint itself shows that the alleged incident occurred in a spur of moment and there was no prior meeting of mind amongst the accused persons as the accused Deepak and Poonam allegedly joined the scuffle later on. It is further alleged that there is no evidence that accused Poonam was even present at the spot of incident when the alleged incident took place and even no MLC of accused Poonam was prepared.
6. Ld counsel for the revisionist also relied upon the judgment of Gurmeet Crl. Rev. No. 420/19 Sandeep Kumar Vs. State & Ors Page no. 3 of 8 Singh Bagga Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr 2010 (10) ILR (Raj.) 512 decided by Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in support of her contentions and the copy of the aforesaid judgment is also annexed with the written submissions filed on behalf of the revisionist.
7. Per contra, Ld counsel for the respondent no. 2, who is the complainant before Ld Trial Court, argued that all the accused persons pursuant to their common intention quarreled with the complainant and his family members and caused simple hurt to Sudhir Kumar i.e. brother of the complainant and caused grievous injury to the complainant Dinesh Kumar. Further, the accused/revisionist Sandeep Kumar and Roshan Lal in furtherance to their common intention uttered the words intending to insult the modesty of the wife of the complainant and they also committed the offence u/s 509/34 IPC. It is alleged that thus Ld Trial Court has rightly framed the charges against the accused persons including the revisionist herein.
8. In the present case, the FIR was registered pursuant to the order of Ld MM u/s 156(3) Cr.PC and the investigation was conducted by the police and the statements of complainant and that of his family members were recorded by the IO u/s 161 Cr.PC and after conclusion of the investigation, the chargesheet was filed and Ld Trial Court framed the charges u/s 323/325/34 IPC against the accused persons including the revisionist herein and the additional charge for the offence u/s 509/34 IPC against accused/revisionist Sandeep Kumar and Roshan Lal.
9. The order of framing of charge has been impugned vide instant revision petition on the ground that the biased investigation was conducted by the IO as the chargesheet is the mere reproduction of the complaint and that the statement of medical personnel regarding the nature of injuries Crl. Rev. No. 420/19 Sandeep Kumar Vs. State & Ors Page no. 4 of 8 sustained by the accused persons was not recorded by the IO and that there is no independent witness to the alleged incident as per the chargesheet and that there are contradiction in the complaint and the statement of the complainant Dinesh and his brother Sudhir recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC. It is also alleged that the exculpatory material/evidence was not gathered by the IO and the investigation regarding the injury sustained by accused/revisionist Sandeep was not conducted by the IO. It is further alleged that there was no common intention or prior meeting of mind so as to attract section 34 IPC to fasten the joint liability upon the accused persons for commission of alleged offences.
10.Perusal of the complaint filed by the complainant as well as his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC recorded by the IO during the investigation reveals that the accused persons and the complainant and his family were having previous animosity due to the property dispute and the revisionist herein alongwith other accused persons came to the plot at Kamruddin Nagar regarding which the dispute was going on and the complainant and his family asked the accused persons not to come on the aforesaid plot again and verbal abuses took place and thereafter the complainant and his family came back to their house for Diwali pooja and after the said pooja the complainant and his family went to Sanatan Dharam mandir and they returned home and while they were entering in their house, they found accused Roshan Lal and Sandeep standing on the entry gate who allegedly hurled abuses and also uttered bad words to outrage the modesty of the wife of the complainant and then the accused Deepak and his wife accused Poonam also came there and thereafter, they all started beating the complainant and thereafter, the brother of the complainant also came there who was also allegedly beaten by the Crl. Rev. No. 420/19 Sandeep Kumar Vs. State & Ors Page no. 5 of 8 accused persons.
11.During the arguments and in the written submissions, it is alleged by the revisionist that there are contradictions in the complaint given by the complainant and his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC as in the complaint it is averred by the complainant that accused no. 1 inflicted injury on the forehand of the complainant no. 1 whereas in the statement made u/s 161 Cr.PC it is stated that accused no. 1 inflicted injury with a brick which attracted the offence of grievous hurt.
12.So far as aforesaid arguments regarding alleged contradictions are concerned, I am of the opinion that the contradictions if any in the statements recorded during the investigation are to be seen by Ld Trial Court during the trial when the statements of witnesses would be recorded before the Court and it is not a ground to discharge the accused/revisionist. It is further pertinent to mention that the medical report of the complainant Dinesh Kumar from the Department of Radiology, which is on record, revealed that he sustained the fracture in the base of proximal phalanx of right finger which suggests that the complainant Dinesh sustained grievous hurt.
13.Another contradiction pointed out by Ld counsel for the revisionist is that the complainant has stated in his complaint that Late Sh. Roshan Lal and accused/revisionist Sandeep were allegedly waiting for complainant Dinesh and his wife outside his house whereas in his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC PW Sudhir Kumar stated that his father Late Sh. Roshan Lal started beating Dinesh and that Sudhir, Sandeep and Deepak came after hearing the commotion.
14.So far as the aforesaid contradiction as alleged by Ld counsel for revisionist is concerned, the same cannot be a ground to discharge the Crl. Rev. No. 420/19 Sandeep Kumar Vs. State & Ors Page no. 6 of 8 accused/revisionist herein. The prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined by Ld Trial Court and Ld counsel for the accused persons would have ample opportunity to conduct their cross examination and it cannot be concluded at this stage that no offence was committed so as to discharge the accused persons in the present case.
15.Another ground taken by revisionist is that the biased investigation was conducted by the IO and the exculpatory material including the medical record regarding the nature of injury sustained by the accused persons was not collected by the IO. However, perusal of the record reveals that the MLCs of revisionist/accused Sandeep Kumar, accused Deepak Kumar and accused Roshan Lal were obtained by the IO during the investigation which are part of the Trial Court Record. Further, the mere fact that certain injuries were also sustained by the accused/revisionist is not a ground to discharge the accused/revisionist from the present case.
16.Ld counsel for the revisionist has also alleged that there is no evidence on record to show the prior meeting of mind of the accused persons so as to attract section 34 IPC and hence, the accused persons including the revisionist could not have been charged for the alleged offences.
17.In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that the complainant has narrated the manner in which the entire incident took place and as per the facts alleged by the complainant, a property dispute between the complainant and his family and the accused persons was going on and on 11.11.2015 which was the day of Diwali, a verbal altercation took place on the disputed plot at Kamruddin Nagar and thereafter, the parties left for their homes, however, on the same day in the evening the accused persons were found standing at the gate of the house where the complainant was residing and then the entire incident took place. In Crl. Rev. No. 420/19 Sandeep Kumar Vs. State & Ors Page no. 7 of 8 these circumstances, it cannot be concluded at this stage that there was no prior meeting of mind amongst the accused persons in order to commit the alleged offences so as to discharge the accused persons for the charges which have been framed by Ld Trial Court against them.
18.Perusal of the statement u/s 161 Cr.PC of PW Sarika who is the wife of the complainant reveals that she has levelled categorical allegations against accused/revisionist Sandeep Kumar and Roshan Lal regarding the commission of offence u/s 509/34 IPC and she has stated that accused Sandeep and Roshal Lal hurled abuses and stated the offensive words (as mentioned in his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC) in order to insult her modesty and the statement of PW Sarika is sufficient to frame the additional charge u/s 509/34 IPC against the accused/revisionist Sandeep Kumar.
19.In view of the abovesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the Ld Trial Court has rightly framed the charges u/s 323/325/34 IPC & u/s 509/34 IPC against the revisionist Sandeep Kumar. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 06.06.2019 and 06.08.2019 passed by Ld MM- 10/West/THC are hereby upheld.
20.The revision petition filed by the revisionist Sandeep Kumar is accordingly dismissed and disposed of.
21. File of revision petition be consigned to Record Room after completing necessary formalities.
22. Trial Court Record be sent back.
23. Copy of order be sent to Ld MM-10/West/THC.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 18th of NOVEMBER 2022. (Manish Khurana) Additional Sessions Judge-04 West/Tis Hazari Courts Delhi/18.11.2022 Crl. Rev. No. 420/19 Sandeep Kumar Vs. State & Ors Page no. 8 of 8