Delhi District Court
Vijay Kumar Verma vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 25 March, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAVINDER DUDEJA,
ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE02 (EAST)/SPL. JUDGE (NDPS)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 38/17
Vijay Kumar Verma
S/o Late Sh. Bhagwan Dass
H.No.527, Gali no.16
West Guru Anagad Nagar
Delhi110092
............ Revisionist
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi)
........... Respondent
Date of Institution: 14.02.2017
Judgment pronounced on: 25.03.2017.
JUDGMENT
This is a revision against the impugned order dated 19.12.2016 passed by Ld.Trial Court thereby framing charge u/s 363/34 IPC against the revisionist herein in case FIR no.1291/2013 titled State Vs.Vijay Kumar Verma, PS Shakarpur. Notice of the revision was given to the State through Ld. Addl.PP. Trial Court record has been summoned and perused. Arguments heard from Ld.Counsel for revisionist as also from Ld. Addl.PP for the State.
CR No.38/2017 Vijay Kumar Verma Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) Page no. 1 of 6
2. Revisionist is accused in case FIR no.1291/13, State Vs. Vijay Kumar Verma, PS Shakarpur. Perusal of the trial court record reveals that FIR was registered u/s 363 IPC at the instance of complainant Ram Sugarat Paswan. As per allegations, on 15.12.2013 at about 3.00 p.m. Sarita daughter of complainant left the house with tenant Anjani for getting done the photocopy of the voter ID card of the complainant but they did not return back. Complainant did not express any suspicion on any person for kidnapping. On 09.12.2013, complainant informed the police that his daughter Sarita and Anjani were standing at Maharaja Hotel, Laxmi Nagar. Both girls were recovered from the hotel. On interrogation, they stated that no one kidnapped them. They were got medically examined. The statements of both the girls were recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. In her statement, Sarita stated that on 05.12.2013, while she and Anjani were going to the photostat shop, Vijay and Surender met them and forcibly made them sit in an auto and took them to a Gurudwara and after leaving them, they went away. They did not know the way to their house. They stayed in gurudwara for three day. Thereafter, a sikh person made them sit in a bus and they came back to their house at Laxmi Nagar. Anjani also stated that two persons made them sit in an auto and left them in Gurudwara where they remained for three days and thereafter they were made to sit in a bus by a Sikh person and then they reached their house. She stated that name of kidnappers were told to her by CR No.38/2017 Vijay Kumar Verma Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) Page no. 2 of 6 Sarita as Surender and Vijay. Accused Vijay Kumar was arrested. Accused Surender could not be arrested. After completing the investigation, chargesheet was filed against accused Vijay Kumar Verma u/s 363 IPC. Trial Court vide order dated 19.12.2016 framed charge u/s 363/34 IPC against the revisionist herein. It is this order which has been challenged in revision.
3. Ld. Counsel for revisionist has argued that no TIP of the revisionist has been conducted. Identity of the revisionist is therefore, not proved. It is further submitted that statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C is contradictory to the statement made to the police wherein Sarita categorically stated that no one had kidnapped her. It is also submitted that Anjani did not name the accused persons and she gave the name of the revisionist and Surender at the instance of Sarita. No effort has been made by police to trace the TSR and its driver to corroborate the version of Sarita. The Sikh person who made both the girls sit in the bus has not been traced out. No one from Gurudwara, where the girls had stayed for three days has been examined. It is submitted that revisionist is neighbourer of the complainant and has been falsely implicated because he had refused to give loan of Rs.20,000/ to the complainant. It is argued that while exercising powers u/s 227 Cr.P.C., the court is not required to act merely as post office or mouth piece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case and total effect of the CR No.38/2017 Vijay Kumar Verma Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) Page no. 3 of 6 evidence. In support of his submissions, Ld. Counsel places reliance on Judgment of Rupender kaur Vs. State & Ors. 2016 LRC Online 02 (Del).
4. Ld.Addl.PP has however, argued that statement made by Sarita and Anjani prima facie prove that they were kidnapped by revisionist and his associate and therefore prima facie charge u/s 363/34 IPC is made out and thus there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Trial Court.
5. Police has collected the age proof of Sarita and Anjani. As per documents so collected, date of birth of Sarita is 14.06.2002 and of Anjani is 19.07.2006. Both the girls are therefore, minors. Kidnapping is defined in Section 361 IPC. The offence of kidnapping is complete the moment minor child under the age of 18 years is taken or enticed out of the keeping of lawful guardian without the consent of the such guardian. Though, in their statements before the police, girls did not say that they were kidnapped by any person but in their statements u/s 164 Cr.PC, they stated that they were forcibly taken in an auto by two persons who left them at Gurudwara. Sarita gave names of said two persons as Vijay and Surender. We are still at the stage of charge. At this stage, the court has only to take prima facie view. The standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be finally applied before finding the CR No.38/2017 Vijay Kumar Verma Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) Page no. 4 of 6 accused guilty or otherwise is not to be applied at the stage of deciding the question of charge and at this stage even a strong suspicion founded on the material leading the Magistrate to form presumptive opinion as to the existence of factual ingredients constituting the offence shall justify the framing of charge. The court is not to make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if it was conducting the trial.
6. Applying the aforesaid test, at this stage, the statements of victims recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C cannot be disbelieved and they constitute prima facie evidence against accused/revisionist. The defence of accused that he has been falsely implicated because he refused to give Rs.20,000/ as loan to the father of victim cannot be considered, at this stage as the same is subject matter of proof. Notwithstanding the fact that second person identified as Surender could not be arrested, the fact remains that the material on record indicates the involvement of more than one person in the commission of offence of kidnapping. Therefore, in my view, prima facie charge for the commission of offence u/s 363/34 IPC is made out against the accused. Hence, I find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 19.12.2016 passed by Ld. MM.
7. In view of my aforesaid discussions, I find no merit in the revision petition. Revision is accordingly, dismissed. TCR be CR No.38/2017 Vijay Kumar Verma Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) Page no. 5 of 6 sent back with copy of this order. Revision file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open
court on 25.03.2017 (RAVINDER DUDEJA)
Addl. Sessions Judge02(East)
Special Judge (NDPS)
KKD COURTS, DELHI.
CR No.38/2017 Vijay Kumar Verma Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) Page no. 6 of 6