Delhi District Court
Sh. Satender vs State Through Gnctd on 3 December, 2021
IN THE COURT OF SH. DHARMENDER RANA, ASJ-02
NEW DELHI DISTRICT PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 35/2020
Case No. 175/2020
CNR No. DLND01-002116-2020
Sh. Satender
S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar,
R/o 2989/4, Gali No. 1,
Ranjeet Nagar, West Patel Nagar,
Delhi.
....Revisionist
Versus
State through GNCTD, Delhi. ....Respondent
Petition received on assignment : 04.03.2020
Arguments on petition concluded : 27.11.2021
Date fixed for pronouncement : 03.12.2021
Date of pronouncement : 03.12.2021
ORDER
1. Vide this order, I propose to dispose of a revision petition filed on behalf of Sh. Satender (hereinafter referred to as Revisionist) assailing the order dated 20.02.2020 whereby the Ld. Trial Court has refused to discharge accused and directed to frame charge under Section 392/34 IPC against the revisionist.
2. Briefly stated: The case of the prosecution is that on 16.04.2019 at about 4.50 PM at Bhagat Singh Place Gole Market, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Mandir Marg, Revisionist Satender Kumar @ Mota alongwith his co-associate (yet to be traced), committed robbery of Rs. 50,000/- from the back pocket of complainant Rajesh Gupta, by threatening the complainant to kill him if he resisted the robbery. After robbing the complainant, 1 Satender Vs State CR No. 35/2020 revisionist fled away with his associate on his motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-6SAR-3672, which was found to be registered in the name of his wife. Consequently, the revisionist was sent up to face trial for the commission of offence 392/34 IPC.
Vide order dated 20.02.2020, the Ld. Trial has directed framing of charge against revisionist for commission of offence u/s 392/34 IPC and further directed that the revisionist is liable for enhanced punishment in view of Section 75 IPC.
3. Aggrieved by the said order, the revisionist has now preferred the instant revision petition assailing the impugned order on the following grounds: -
(a) That the revisionist is a innocent person and he has nothing to do with the commission of the present case.
(b) That the revisionist has been arrested on the basis of merely a disclosure statement.
(c) That the Ld. Trial Court failed to consider the fact that the revisionist has co-operated in the investigation and he was not even identified in the judicial TIP and no recovery of any amount has been effected from the present revisionist to connect him with the present case.
(d) That the Ld. Trial court erred in relying upon the statement of complainant u/s 161 CrPC recorded by the police after conducting judicial TIP.
(e) That the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the FSL report in respect of identity of the revisionist in the said CCTV footage.
(f) That the Ld. Trial court failed to consider the fact that at 2 Satender Vs State CR No. 35/2020 the time of surrender before the Ld. Trial Court, he has explained the reason that the vehicle might have been stolen by some persons as he was attending the death ceremony of some relative at the time of incident and he was not aware about the person who took his motorcycle.
(g) That the Ld. Trial Court failed to consider the fact that the supplementary statement of the witness u/s 161 CrPC was recorded by the police just to cover up their case and the FSL report is clear about the fact that at the time of incident, the vehicle was not in the possession of the revisionist so, no onus lies upon him under section 106 Indian Evidence Act.
4. I have heard the Ld. Addl. PP and carefully gone through the material available on record. Despite opportunity revisionist has neither addressed any oral arguments nor filed any written arguments.
5. In the case of Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat v. State of U.P, reported in (2013) 11 SCC 476, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that at the stage of framing of charge the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, discloses the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record and what needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. At this stage, even strong 3 Satender Vs State CR No. 35/2020 suspicion founded on material which leads the court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged would justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence.
6. It is well settled law that at the stage of framing of charge, the court is not required to dwell deep into the merits of the case. Veracity of the prosecution witnesses is to be tested upon the anvil of trial.
7. The identity of the accused constitutes the most important aspects of any criminal trial. In the case at hand admittedly, in the TIP proceedings, the complainant has failed to identify the accused as perpetrator of the offence. Even in the FSL result it is opined that in the CCTV footage due to low picture resolution, the requisite facial recognition test could not be carried out. However, the statement recorded u/s 161 CrPC of the complainant, wherein he identified the accused as perpetrator of the offence, cannot be ignored at this stage. I concur with the Ld. Trial Court that the probative value of the same is to be tested at the stage of trial. The complainant has not only identified the revisionist as perpetrator of the offence but has even duly explained as to why he could not identify the revisionist during the TIP proceedings. I have no hesitation in observing that TIP proceedings is not a substantive piece of evidence and is merely used for corroborative purposes. Even the FSL result carries only a persuasive value. It would be pertinent to mention here that the involvement of motorcycle bearing no. DL-6SAR-3672 stands duly corroborated by the FSL result. In pursuance to the notice 4 Satender Vs State CR No. 35/2020 u/s 133 M. V. Act, the registered owner of motorcycle bearing no. DL-6SAR-3672 has categorically informed that on the date of the incident, the said motorcycle was with revisionist Satender Kumar. Now in such circumstances, separate supplementary statement recorded u/s 161 CrPC identifying the revisionist as perpetrator of the offence, coupled with the CCTV footage of robbery incident and the response of the registered owner u/s 133 M.V. Act raises a very grave suspicion against the revisionist fully justifying his case to be put on trial. Failure of the TIP proceedings would constitute a very important factor in favour of the accused. However, the TIP proceedings is not conclusive in nature and is merely corroborative in nature. In the case at hand, the entire incident of robbery has been captured in CCTV footage. I concur with the Ld. Addl. PP that the substantive identification of the accused takes place only during the trial in the court and mere failure of the TIP proceedings or the expert opinion in the FSL result is not sufficient in itself to efface the other incriminating evidence available on record i.e. the supplementary statement of the complainant u/s 161 CrPC and reply of the registered owner in pursuance to notice u/s 133 of the M.V. Act.
8. As a cumulative effect of the above said discussion, I do not find any merits in the revision petition at hand. The present revision petition accordingly stands dismissed.
9. The revision accordingly stands disposed off.
10. Trial Court Record be sent back with the copy of this order.
5Satender Vs State CR No. 35/2020
11. Copy of the instant order be given dasti to all the concerned.
12. File of present revision be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court ( Dharmender Rana)
On 03.12.2021 ASJ-02: NDD: PHC
NEW DELHI.
6
Satender Vs State
CR No. 35/2020
Criminal Revision No. 35/2020
Case No. 175/2020
CNR No. DLND01-002116-2020
Satender Vs. State
03.12.2021
Present: None.
Vide separate order of even date, the present revision petition is dismissed.
TCR be sent back with the copy of this order.
Copy of the instant order be given dasti to all the concerned.
File of present revision be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance.
( Dharmender Rana) ASJ-02: NDD: PHC NEW DELHI.
03.12.2021 7 Satender Vs State CR No. 35/2020