Delhi District Court
State vs . Heera Lal & Others on 8 October, 2012
IN THE COURT OF Dr. T.R. NAVAL, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE-02, EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
SC No.03/12
Unique Case I.D. No.02402R036075/2011
Date of Argument :06.09.2012
Date of Order :06.10.2012
FIR No.:258/11
PS:Anand Vihar
U/S:365/307/392/411/201/120B IPC
State vs. Heera Lal & Others
ORDER ON CHARGE
The facts of the prosecution case in brief are
that accused Smt. Reena Singhal arrived at P.S. Anand
Vihar and made her statement mentioning that she had
been residing at premises No. D-29, Anand Vihar Colony
along with her family. She gives tuition to the students. On
24.08.2011her mother in law, Smt. Asha Singhal aged about 60 years left the house at about 11:30 a.m. after informing her that she was going to the house of her younger son Prateek Singhal situated at Paschim Vihar and she would return after 3-4 days. She also instructed not to telephoned her during this period except in emergency case. On 27.08.2011, her devar, younger brother of her husband Prateek came at her residence and when she told SC No.03/12 State Vs. Heera Lal & Ors. Page 1 of 9 that her mother in law had gone to his house then he informed that her mother in law did not reach at his house. They made her search. A report of missing by DD No.33B dated 27.08.2011 at PS Anand Vihar, Delhi was recorded. The information regarding missing of Smt. Asha Singhal was flashed. During investigation, the Investigation Officer suspected about the missing of Smt. Asha Singhal and after discussing the senior officers and SHO, a case u/s 365 IPC was registered. On 25.08.2011, a DD Entry at P.S. Hauz Khas, New Delhi was recorded that an unknown lady was admitted in the hospital in the state of unconsciousness. Nothing was with her to identify her and to inform her relative. On 24.08.2011, 25.08.2011, 27.08.2011 and 29.08.2011 doctor opined that she was unfit to make statement. On 01.09.2011 doctor declared her fit to make statement. In her statement, Smt. Asha Singhal disclosed that she was owner of property No. D-29, ground floor and she wanted to sell it but her daughter in law, Reena Singhal @ Reena Bansal opposed to it. She wanted to possess that property alone. Her son Parag was not physically and mentally well. She was also looking after her and her husband so well that she was having faith in her. Reena Singhal @ Reena Bansal in order to kill her, started giving her slow poison. 5-6 days prior to the date of SC No.03/12 State Vs. Heera Lal & Ors. Page 2 of 9 incident, she injected six injections herself on her left arm stating that she will be all right thereafter. Her arm was swallowed. Reena Singhal @ Reena Bansal usurped jewellery and other articles from her house. On the date of incident she gave a glass of milk stating that she had to go to hospital. In semi conscious condition she made her ready for going to hospital. She also took her purse, containing papers of bank. She was wearing gold chain in her neck and diamond ear rings in her ears. After saying that she had to go to hospital, she took her in a vehicle. After sitting in the vehicle, she became fully unconscious and when she regained her conscious she found herself in AIIMS Hospital. She alleged that Reena Singhal @ Reena Bansal in order to kill her, committed that crime by giving her poison in the form of medicine and also took her jewellery without her permission. On sustained interrogation, Reena Singhal @ Reena Bansal made disclosure statement in which she, inter alia, stated that she had given 10-12 libotryp tablets o her mother in law Smt. Asha Singhal on 24.08.2011 and she had procured that medicines on consulting the doctors in her own name. She also admitted of hiring a vehicle from Abba Travels and taking her mother in law in that vehicle and removing her purse, mobile phone, jewellery and other articles and left SC No.03/12 State Vs. Heera Lal & Ors. Page 3 of 9 her near the hospital. Police also recorded statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. of one Puneet Kumar Singh who inter alia stated that at the instructions of Reena Singhal @ Reena Bansal, he had taken a purse containing jewellery and handed over the same to Sh. Vikas Kumar Maggo. The above mentioned articles were recovered from Sh. Vikas Kumar Maggo from his house which were seized by police. Reena Singhal @ Reena Bansal also made disclosure statement that she had handed over diamond ear ring, gold chain, cash to a person named Panditji who was involved in commission of the crime. Some jewellery and articles were also recovered from the house of Heera Lal @ Panditji which were seized by the police. Police also seized other articles including vehicle Wagon-R, Mobile, receipt of jewellery, etc. and on completion of investigation filed the charge sheet against all the three accused persons for their trial for the offence punishable u/s 365/307/392/411/207/120B IPC.
2. It has been argued on behalf of accused Heera Lal @ Pandit that there was no sufficient evidence against him to frame charge against him except for offence punishable u/s 411 IPC. Similar were the submissions on behalf of accused Vishal Kumar Maggo. It has been argued that charge against all the accused person has not been SC No.03/12 State Vs. Heera Lal & Ors. Page 4 of 9 made out.
3. I have heard arguments of Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused persons and Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the files.
4. In support of his arguments, counsel for accused Heera Lal @ Pandit relied on a case Parminder Singh Sethi & Anr. v. State & Anr., 2011 [3] JCC 1814 in which it has been mentioned that mobile call record was not admissible in evidence in view of the provisions of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.
5. On the other hand, Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor and Ld. Counsel for complainant submitted that there is sufficient material on record to frame charge against all the accused persons for the offences punishable u/s 365/307/392/411/201/120B IPC. In support of their arguments they relied on a case Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati vs. CBI, 2003 SCC (Cri.) 1121, wherein it was held that it is difficult to establish conspiracy by direct evidence. To bring home the charge of conspiracy within the ambit of section 120-B, it is necessary that there was an agreement between the parties for doing an unlawful act. It has been emphasized by them that telephone call details and the statements of witnesses particularly statement of PW- Puneet Kumar Singh have prima facie shown that there had SC No.03/12 State Vs. Heera Lal & Ors. Page 5 of 9 been a conspiracy amongst accused persons.
6. My attention goes to a case, Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar, AIR 1979 SC 366 (1) wherein the Apex Court observed that:
"10. Thus, on a consideration of authorities mentioned above, the following principles emerge:
(1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out;
(2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceedings with the trial.
(3) The test of determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large, however, if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. (4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was SC No.03/12 State Vs. Heera Lal & Ors. Page 6 of 9 conducting a trial."
7. Thus, the court at the time of framing of charge as provided under Section 227 of the Cr. P.C., has to see the material to enable it to decide prima facie whether Court should proceed with trial or not. At this stage, the Court is not to scan evidence as if it is to acquit or convict the accused. Truth, veracity and effect of evidence are not to be judged at the stage contemplated by section 227 of the Cr.P.C. Absence of ground for proceeding against the accused means absence of a prima facie case, the Court may sift evidence to see whether ingredients of the alleged offences are in existence or not? Where there is a strong suspicion existing at the initial stage 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. Thus, it is crystal clear that at the time of forming an opinion on the point of charge, the Court has to form a prima facie opinion of the matter. No meticulous assessment of evidence is permissible at that juncture.
8. Turning to the case in hand and on perusal of file, I find that in personal search memo of accused Reena SC No.03/12 State Vs. Heera Lal & Ors. Page 7 of 9 Singhal it has been mentioned that Vodaphone No. 99996686443 and 9873663290 were recovered from her possession. In the personal search memo of accused Vishal Kumar Magoo telephone number 9999972783 was recovered from his possession. Mobile number 9654882453 and 9818258630 were found in possession of Heera Lal @ Panditji. Telephone call details show that there was conversation between the holder of these telephone numbers during the relevant time. The statement of Sh. Puneet Kumar has further create grave suspicion against the accused persons regarding their involvement in criminal conspiracy alongwith accused Reena Singhal.
9. Although Ld. Defence Counsel relied on a case Parminder Singh Sethi vs. State and another, (supra), regarding admissibility of the telephone call details but in my view that has to be looked into after the prosecution adduce its evidence for proving the same. The telephone detail calls cannot be discarded at the stage of charge.
10. In view of the above reasons and discussion, and principles of law laid down in case Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar, (supra), I am of the view that there is sufficient material on record creating grave suspicion against all the three accused about their involvement in commission of offence punishable u/s 365/307/392/411/ SC No.03/12 State Vs. Heera Lal & Ors. Page 8 of 9 201/120B IPC. Let charge against the accused be framed accordingly.
Announced in the Open Court Dated:08.10.2012 (DR. T.R. NAVAL) Additional Sessions Judge-02, East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi SC No.03/12 State Vs. Heera Lal & Ors. Page 9 of 9