Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

The State Of Nct Of Delhi vs . Deepak on 27 August, 2012

                                                           The State of NCT of Delhi Vs. Deepak
                                                                                  CR No. 31/12


       IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIJAY KUMAR DAHIYA
              ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
                DWARKA COURTS : DELHI

In the matter of :­

The State of NCT of Delhi
Through Public Prosecutor
                                                     ... Petitioner/Revisionist
                                   VERSUS
Deepak
                                                                    ... Respondent

In FIR No. 09/10, PS Inder Puri,
under Section 324/ IPC
                                                           CR No.31/12
                                         Date of Institution:28.02.2012
                                     Reserved for orders on: 13.08.2012
                                   Judgment announced on:27.08.2012

JUDGMENT

1. Vide this order I shall dispose of the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 17.01.2012 passed by the Ld. Trial Court, whereby the accused/ respondent has been discharged for the offence under Section 324/325 IPC.

2. As per the prosecution story, it is alleged that on 23.01.2010, a DD No. 24A was recorded by PCR on receiving a call that one boy was beaten up near the forest area, Inder Puri Page 1 of 6 27.08.2012 The State of NCT of Delhi Vs. Deepak CR No. 31/12 and HC Kuldeep alongwith Ct.Arun Pratap reached at the spot but none was found there. Thereafter, on receipt of another DD No. 25A, police official reached at Safdarjung Hospital where injured Chander Shekhar was shifted but injured was declared unfit for giving statement. Ultimately, statement of the injured was recorded on 08.03.2010 wherein he stated that Deepak was the assailant who had injured him. Thereafter, the opinion of doctor was taken and Section 325 IPC was added. The accused was arrested in another case bearing FIR No. 46/10 on 02.04.2010 wherein he disclosed that he had committed the offence in the present FIR bearing no. 9/10 PS Inder Puri. On 02.06.2010, I.O. recorded the supplementary statement of the complainant in which he depicted the name of the accused Deepak, who was the preparator of crime.

3. Vide impugned order, Ld. Trial Court has discharged the accused/respondent Deepak.

4. Ld. Counsel on behalf of State/ petitioner has contended that the Ld. Trial Court has discharged the accused on the following grounds:

(a) That there are not sufficient grounds for framing charge against the accused Deepak as only evidence is the disclosure statement of the accused.

(b)That I.O. has failed to connect the injuries which were Page 2 of 6 27.08.2012 The State of NCT of Delhi Vs. Deepak CR No. 31/12 alleged to be caused by the accused.

(c) That in the present case, neither the injured has stated that he can identify the accused, nor TIP of accused was conducted.

5. It is further contended by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as there was strong suspicion against the accused and accused was liable to be charged for the alleged offence. Further more, Ld. Trial Court has not appreciated the fact that, in his statement made on 08.03.2010 and supplementary statement made on 02.06.2010, the complainant has specifically named the accused as a person who had inflicted injury upon him as accused was known to him earlier being a good friend.

6. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent/ accused has submitted that apart from disclosure statement, there is no evidence on record against the accused/ respondent and the Ld. Trial Court has rightly discharged the accused. It is further submitted that the there is no illegality in the impugned order and this revision petitions deserves to be dismissed.

7. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and gone through the record of Ld. Trial Court.

The State of NCT of Delhi Vs. Deepak CR No. 31/12

8. The complainant Shri Chander Shekhar, in his both the statements made on 08.03.2010 and 02.06.2010, has stated that he had gone with the accused on hills situated behind jungle at Inder Puri to have liquor and there at the hills, under the influence of liquor, dispute arose between him and the accused and accused broke liquor bottle and inflicted various injuries on his body. Resultantly, complainant lost his consciousness and after re­gaining consciousness, he found himself in Safdarjung Hospital. The same fact of inflicting injury on him by the accused is retreated by the complainant in his supplementary statement made on 02.06.2010.

9. In the case of State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh, AIR 1977 SC 2018 it was held as under:

"at the beginning and the initial stage of the trial, the truch, veracity and effect of the evidence which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. Nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused. It is not obligatory for the Judge at that stage of the trial to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The standard of test and Judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a Page 4 of 6 27.08.2012 The State of NCT of Delhi Vs. Deepak CR No. 31/12 finding regarding the guilt or, otherwise, of the accused is not exactly to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter under Section 277 or Section 228 of the Code. At that stage the Court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage, if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."

10. In view of above discussion, I am of the view that the evidence has not been appreciated by the Ld. Trial Court. So, I deem it proper that impugned order be set aside, therefore, the impugned order dated 17.01.2012 is hereby set aside. Ld. Trial Court is requested to take into consideration, this piece of evidence before passing any order on charge qua accused/respondent Deepak in the present case.

11. The accused/respondent is directed to appear before the Ld. Trial Court on 27.09.2012.

The State of NCT of Delhi Vs. Deepak CR No. 31/12

12. Record of the Ld. Trial Court be sent back alongwith a copy of order for information.

13. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in the open court (Vijay Kumar Dahiya) on the 27th Day of August 2012 ASJ/ Dwarka Courts New Delhi/27.08.2012 Page 6 of 6 27.08.2012