Delhi District Court
State vs . Omwati on 5 November, 2019
Case No. 288715/2016
STATE Vs. OMWATI
FIR No. 344 /2013
PS. Burari
05.11.2019
In view of the incident dated 02.11.2019, between the Police staff and the Advocates, no police staff is present in the Court today. Advocates are on strike.
Present: None for the State.
Both accused persons in person on bail. Complainant in person.
Clarification obtained from the complainant. As per her the accused Omwati bit her face and as a result she suffered grievous injuries on her face, resulting in permanent disfiguration of her face.
The MLC of the complainant states that the injuries suffered by her is simple, however, the MLC affirms that there is a human bite under the right eye of the complainant.
Arguments on charge qua accused persons have already been heard on 20.02.2019.
Submissions heard. Record perused.
To begin with, I find it absolutely necessary to take on record contd./ -2- the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment titled "Kanti Bhadra Shah & Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal, (2000) 1 SCC 722, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that there is no legal requirement that the trial Court should write an order showing the reasons for framing of charge. The same was also relied upon by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the judgment titled "Bhushan Kumar & Anr. Vs. State, Crl. Appeal No. 612 of 2012."
From the perusal of the entire record and after hearing the arguments, I am of the considered opinion that charge u/s 323/341 IPC is made out against the accused persons.
Charge is separately framed. The same is read and explained to the accused in vernacular language to which the accused has pleaded not guilty and have claimed trial.
Be put up for P.E on 02.03.2020.
Complainant be summoned for the NDOH.
(Harjeet Singh Jaspal) MM09/Central/THC Delhi/05.11.2019