Delhi District Court
Virender Kumar vs State on 6 April, 2018
: 1 :
CR No. 295/17
Virender Kumar Vs State
06.04.2018
Present : Sh Manoj Kumar, ld counsel for petitioner alongwith
petitioner in person.
Sh B.B. Bhasin, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Arguments on revision petition heard.
Put up for orders during the course of the day.
(Manish Yaduvanshi)
ASJ05(West)/THC
06.04.2018
At 3.25 p.m.
ORDER (ORAL)
Present : None.
By way of this revision petition under Section 397/399 Cr.P.C, the petitioner herein (being one of the accused in FIR No. 495/15 P.S Maya Puri) has assailed the order passed by the Ld. Trial Court on 20.5.2017.
By way of that order, the Ld. Trial Court ordered that prima facie charge for offences punishable under Section 506/509 read with Section 34 IPC is made out against the present petitioner and his coaccused namely Shourav Kumar.
The ld. Trial Court further held that as both the accused persons used criminal force upon the victim to outrage her modesty, : 2 : thus a prima facie charge for offence under Section 354 IPC was also made out against the present petitioner and his coaccused namely Shourav Kumar.
The ld. Trial Court also held that there was prima facie case that the present petitioner and his coaccused Shourav Kumar had, while using criminal force, torn away the clothes of the victim 'K' (Pseudonym assigned) and thus a charge for offence under Section 354 read with Section 34 IPC is also made out against the present petitioner and his co accused Shourav Kumar.
The order has been challenged primarily on the ground that the Ld. Trial Court has ignored that there are glaring and material discrepancies as well as contradictions in the statement of complainant and other witnesses. It is contended that the Ld. Trial Court did not appreciate the fact that accused persons including the petitioner had also filed a prior complaint dated 26.9.2013 against the complainant side.
It is also contended that no offence is made out as no incident took place which is visible from the CCTV footage. It is also contended that the call made to PCR was only with respect to a quarrel and not any incident of outraging modesty of the complainant as subsequently made out.
During the course of arguments, the Trial Court record was carefully perused. It is contended by Sh Manoj Kumar, ld counsel for petitioner that even if the Court straightaway believes the prosecution case then also, there is absolutely no averment against the : 3 : present petitioner of having committed the offence punishable under Section 354B IPC at all as such allegations are made only in respect of accused Shourav Kumar. It is contended that at best, the charge for offence under Section 509 IPC only would be made out against the present petitioner and not offence under Section 354B IPC.
On the other hand, Ld. Prosecutor Sh B.B Bhasin has urged that the arguments raised by the petitioner are nothing but a fallacy. It is urged that the prosecution has sought the aid of Section 34 IPC and this fact has been rightly appreciated by the ld. Trial Court and the present petitioner was rightly charged for offence under Section 354B IPC with the aid of Section 34 IPC. It is contended also that at the stage of charge, the Court will not look into the plea of presence of improvements/contradictions amongst the statements of witnesses that were recorded during investigation.
Careful perusal of file of revision petition reveals that petitioner has placed on record various complaints made to the local police at pages 12 to 22 of the paper book. Same have been perused by this Court. The objective of these documents is primarily to show that the present FIR is nothing but a counter blast to the previous complaint out of which only one complaint dated 26.9.2013 has been mentioned by the petitioner in the revision petition. However, at the stage of charge, this Court can not enter into this aspect. It can only be appreciated once the evidence has been adduced.
In judgment titled as Soma Chakravarty Vs. State : 4 : through CBI Crl. Appeal no. 710 of 2007, it is held that material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at the stage of framing of charge. Court must apply its mind and must be satisfied that commission of offence by accused was possible, where accused infact committed offence, can only be decided in trial. It is also held that charge may although be directed to be framed when there exists a strong suspicion but it is also trite that the court must come to a prima facie finding that there exists some materials.
In the Judgment in Criminal Appeal no. 192 of 2010 titled as P. Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala and Anr. , it is held that consideration of records and documents at the stage of framing of charge is for limited purpose of ascertaining whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. Whether the materials at the hands of the prosecution are sufficient and whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal are not relevant considerations at the stage of framing of charge.
In the Judgment of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court titled as Narendra Sharma @ Pappu Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Crl.No.888 of 2000 titled as State of Delhi Vs. Gyan Devi & others , it is held that at the stage of framing of charge, the trial court is not to examine and assess in detail the materials placed on record by the prosecution nor it is for the court to consider the sufficiency of the materials to establish the offence alleged against the accused persons. At the stage of charge, the court is to examine the materials only with a view to be satisfied that a prima facie case of commission of offence : 5 : alleged has been made out against the accused persons.
Further, at this stage of framing of Charge, the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecution purposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. The Apex Court in a number of cases had held that at the stage of framing the charges, meticulous consideration of evidence and material by the court is not required; nor the adequacy of the evidence can be seen at this stage as it would amount to premature appreciation of evidence. The same view has been held by their Lordship in Kanti Bhadra Shah Vs. State of West Bengal, 2000 Crl.L.J.746 and Omwati Vs. State through Delhi Admn,. 2001 (2) Crimes 59.
Admn,. 2001 (2) Crimes 59.
What is therefore, clear from the above analysis on the law of subject is that this Court is required to see the case of the prosecution at its face value.
The FIR has been registered on the complaint of the victim who is referred to as 'K' and also the other victim referred to as 'S' by the Ld. Trial Court after having assigned a pseudonym to them. It is revealed that accused persons entered into a fight with the complainant and her husband and when one of them namely 'K' intervened, the accused persons with an intention to outrage her modesty pushed her, abused her and touched her inappropriately. They have also torn her clothes.
The Court finds that the victims had given their written statements to the police. The victim 'K' made a statement dated 17.9.2015 in which she has categorically mentioned her neighbours : 6 : namely Rajeev Singh and his wife 'S' were having altercation with Shourav Kumar and the present petitioner. During the same, co accused Shourav Kumar pushed 'S' in a very objectionable way and uttered derogatory remarks. He also did not spare the victim 'K'.
Likewise, the hand written statement of victim 'S' categorically reveals that the present petitioner took up a fight with her husband and also called coaccused Shourav Kumar. The said co accused inappropriately touched her and also pushed her. The present petitioner tried to embrace the victim 'S'. At that time, the victim 'K' intervened and she was treated in similar fashion. Even her clothes were torn.
Sh Rajeev Singh also made a hand written statement to the police. He is husband of victim 'S'. He supports both the victims.
Sh Pawan Kumar is neighbour of the victims/complainants and had implicated both the accused persons in similar manner and has also supported the case as put up by the victim 'K', victim 'S' and Sh Rajeev Singh.
Both the victims have supported their hand written complaints given to the police in their statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C by saying before the concerned MM that they do not intend to speak any further than they have already spoken in their complaints dated 17.9.2015. Same tentamounts to supporting their previous case and it does not tentamount to abandoning it.
In these circumstances, the plea that there is no direct allegation against the present petitioner qua offence under Section : 7 : 354B IPC is not found to be impressive. It is already in the statement of these witnesses that the present petitioner had called coaccused Shourav Kumar. This is an indicia of presence of common intention amongst them.
There are clear allegations against the accused persons of having committed offence punishable under Section 506/509/354 and also 354B read with Section 34 IPC and thus there is sufficient material to proceed against the accused persons in the manner charged with.
Consequently, there is no infirmity, illegality or error of finding in the order impugned. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed.
Copy of order be sent to the Ld. Trial Court for intimation alongwith trial Court record.
The parties are directed to appear before Ld. Trial Court on 16.4.2018 for further directions.
File of revision petition be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court. (Manish Yaduvanshi)
Dated: 06.04.2018 ASJ05(West)/THC
Digitally
signed by
MANISH
MANISH YADUVANSHI
YADUVANSHI Date:
2018.04.07
17:04:24
+0530