Delhi District Court
Ramesh Chand vs State on 8 August, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH.SURESH CHAND RAJAN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE(NDPS)
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
Crl. Revision No.123/12
Ramesh Chand
S/o Sh. Shiv Karan Sharma
....Revisionist
Vs.
1. State
2. Vinod Solanki s/o Late Kishan Solanki
3. Ravinder Solanki s/o Sh Mahender Singh
4. Jitender @ Jitu s/o Suraj Singh
5. Sandeep Sharma s/o Daya Ram Sharma
...... Respondents
Date of Institution: 26.05.2012
Reserved for Order on: 30.07.2014
Order Pronounced on : 08.08.2014
ORDER
The present revision petition u/s 397/401 Cr.PC has been directed against the order dated 30.04.2012 passed by Ms. Ruchika Singla Ld.MM whereby the respondent were charged for Ramesh Chand Vs. The State & Ors.
Crl.Rev. no.123/2012 P age No.1 of 8 the offence u/s 452/323/34 IPC and u/s 27 Arms Act.
2. Briefly stated the facts for giving rise to this revision petition are that on 31.3.2011 on receipt of DD no.5A, ASI Rajender alongwith Ct. Dhanesh reached at A3 Chander Vihar and came to know that the person who quarreled had run away from the spot. On receipt of DD no.6B, he alongwith Ct. Dhanesh reached in DDU Hospital and collected MLC of Ramesh Chand, Manoj Kumar and Mohan on which the injuries were mentioned as simple blunt. Thereafter, on receipt of DD no.5A, IO reached at the place of Ramesh Chand and recorded his statement wherein he has alleged that on the intervening night of 30/31.3.2011 at about 12.15 a.m they were going to sleep after watching match on T.V. In the meantime Vinod Solanki @ Onida s/o Sh Krishan Solanki came to his house alongwith his associates and started abusing and uttered 'Harijan basti wala plot mat kharidna'. He was accompanied by Jeetu Solanki, Ravinder @ Motu and Sandi r/o Matiyala and he can identify the others if produced before him. They all, after entering their house, dragged him and his son Manoj out and started beating them with iron rods. They also had a pistol. The associates of Vinod Solanki had given sariya blow on his head and his son Manoj was also beaten mercilessly. He Ramesh Chand Vs. The State & Ors.
Crl.Rev. no.123/2012 P age No.2 of 8 sustaeined grievous injury on his head. He has further stated that when his daughter in law Mohni tried to make call to police at that time Jeetu uttered 'maar sali ko'. Then Vinod Solanki made fire on her which passed touching her ankle. They were also beaten by Monu, Sandi and others. In the meantime, the locality people gahtered there and police also reached at the spot. But all the above said persons ran away from there after firing in the air. While going they threatened 'aaj to bach gaye ho abki baar nahi bachoge'. They are removed to DDU Hospital by the PCR van where they were treated. The investigation was conducted. The accused persons were arrested. After completion of the investigation, challan was filed. On 30.04.2014, Ld. MM, on fiding prima facie evidence, framed charge u/s 452/323/34 IPC and 27 Arms Act against the accused persons. The revisionist feeling aggrieved by the said order has preferred this present revision petition for setting aside the said order.
3. The present revision petition was received by this court and trial court record was received. I have heard the arguments on this revision petition from the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist as well as from the Ld. Addl.PP for the State. Ramesh Chand Vs. The State & Ors.
Crl.Rev. no.123/2012 P age No.3 of 8
4. During the course of arguments, it has been submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist that the court is not bound by the investigation carried out by the investigating agency and has to go in deep of the consequent facts. It is submitted that considering the facts of the case not only section 452/323 IPC are made out in this case but prima facie sec.307 IPC is also made out. It is submitted that more than 5 persons had participate which constituted an unlawful assembly and therefore sec.147/148/149 IPC are also attracted in this case. He has drawn the attention on DD no.5A. It is submitted that the accused/respondent have fired with deadly weapon upon injured Mohni and therefore attempt to kill has been made, though it passed by the side of her ankle. It is submitted that the main accused was in possession of arm who had gone in the night to the house of complainant which confirm pre planned attempt but Ld. Trial court has failed to consider the same. It is submitted that allowing the accusecd using lacuna in the police investigation will only encourage the law brokers and demoralizing the law abiders which is a serious threat to the social tranquility. It is submitted that the impugned order passed by the Ld. MM may kindly be set aside and direction may be issued to amend charge u/s 147/148/149/452/307/323/34/120B r/w sec.27/54/59 Arms Act.
Ramesh Chand Vs. The State & Ors.
Crl.Rev. no.123/2012 P age No.4 of 8
5. On the other hand Ld. APP for the State as well as Ld. Counsel for accused/respondent has argued that the present case against the respondents is false. It has been fabricated at thte instance of revisionist Ramesh Sanyasi just to compel the respondent no.1 and his brother not to depose in the cases wherein they are witnesses against the son of the revisionist against whom number of cases are pending and present in judicial custody in case FIR no.240/11 u/s 302/34 IPC. It is submitted that the revisionist is involved in number of cases bearing FIR no.2/11, 4/11 and 5/11. His son Vinod @ Vicky is history sheeter and number of other cases are pending against him. It is submitted that the respondents are not involved in the present case. It is submitted that the alleged weapon was reovered from the office of respondent no.1 in his absence. It was never used in the commission of any crime. No empty cartridge was recovered from the spot. No damage was caused anywhere. It is submitted that no gun shot injury was detected on the body of Ms. Mohini and even subsequent opinion was also taken wherein it has been opined that 'there was no gun shot injury on the date of examination, hence injury remains the same as per MLC and as per MLC the nature of injury given by the doctor is simple and blunt'. It is further submitted that there is delay in recording the statement of Ramesh Chand Vs. The State & Ors.
Crl.Rev. no.123/2012 P age No.5 of 8 complainant and therefore there is possibility of manipulation. It is stated that only four accused were charge sheeted in this case and therefore no offnece u/s 147/148/149 IPC is made out. It is submitted that the revision filed by the revisionist may kindly be dismissed.
6. In consideration of the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist as well as the Ld.Addl. PP for the State, I have also perused the trial court file, statement of complainant and other documents available on file. It would be apt to recall that a court exercising revisional jurisdiction cannot go into intricate details as regards the merits of a matter and many interfere only when there is any illegality or material irregularity or impropriety in the order passed by the lower court. A revisional court cannot act as a court of appeal and reappraise the merits of the case. Thus the task that lay before this court is to see whether the trial court carefully applied the law with regard to framing of charge to the facts of this case and if there is any infirmity in the impugned order.
7. So, I have perused the order passed by the Ld. Trial court dated 30.04.2012. At the stage of framing of charge, the Ramesh Chand Vs. The State & Ors.
Crl.Rev. no.123/2012 P age No.6 of 8 court is not required to meticulously analyze or weight the evidence. It is not required to be seen as to whether the material including the evidence available on record was to result in conviction or not. What is required to be seen is as to whether there is material on record to cast grave suspicion of the commission of offence by the accused persons and if it was so, the framing of charge is justified.
8. On perusal of the order passed by the Ld. MM dated 30.04.2012, it is revealed that while passing the said order all the accused were present on bail with counsel. It is mentioned in the ordersheet that no arguments were advancecd on the point of framing of charge. It is, therefore crystal clear that Ld. Counsel for the accused has not argued this case on charge before the Ld. MM and Ld. MM has passed the order on charge herself considering the evidence on file. DD no.5A finds mention that shot has been fired behind airforce society, Palam Extension. The pistol is stated to be a licenced pistol. There are four accused person arrayed in the charge sheet.
9. Order dated 30.04.2012 passed by the Ld.MM clearly indicate that arguments on charge have not been heard from the Ramesh Chand Vs. The State & Ors.
Crl.Rev. no.123/2012 P age No.7 of 8 Ld. Counsel for the revisionist/complainant as well as Ld.Addl.PP for the State. No witness has yet been examined. Therefore, the order passed by Ld.MM dated 30.04.2012 is set aside. Ld.MM is directed to hear the arguments from the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist/Ld.Addl.PP for the State & Ld. Counsel for the accused and then pass afresh order on charge.
10. Parties to appear before the Ld. Trial court on 18.08.2014.
11. Trial court record be sent back with the copy of this order and revision file be consigned to record room. Announced in the Open Court on 08.08.2014.
(SURESH CHAND RAJAN) ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE/ SPECIAL JUDGE(NDPS) NEW DELHI Ramesh Chand Vs. The State & Ors.
Crl.Rev. no.123/2012 P
age No.8 of 8