IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
S.P. GARG, J.
Yashwinder Malik & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State & Anr. - Respondents
Crl. Rev. P. Nos. 472 of 2016; 183, 591 of 2015 & Crl. M.A. Nos. 10748-49 of 2016; 4542, 15110 of 2015
Decided On : 08-12-2016
IPC - Criminal Conspiracy - Sections 364A, 342, 376(2)(f), 511, 506, 308, 326, 120B - The court discussed the legality and correctness of the charges framed against the petitioners under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The court found that the charge under Section 376(2)(f) IPC read with Section 511 IPC was framed erroneously as this section came into existence only in 2013 and cannot have retrospective operation. The court also found that there was no convincing material to proceed against the petitioners under Section 307 IPC. The court analyzed the evidence and concluded that the impugned charges against the petitioners were not legally maintainable.
Fact of the Case:
The victim, who had married against the wishes of her family, was physically attacked and acid was thrown on her body. The victim initially did not implicate the petitioners in the crime, but later accused her employer of being possessive and attempting to establish a physical relationship with her. The victim also suspected the involvement of her employer's wife in the attack.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the charges framed against the petitioners under various sections of the IPC were not legally maintainable due to lack of convincing material and evidence. The court also dismissed the revision petition filed by the complainant against the petitioners and others.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality and correctness of the charges framed against the petitioners under different sections of the IPC, the victim's initial and subsequent statements, and the lack of convincing material to proceed against the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the analysis of the evidence, the victim's statements, and the lack of convincing material to support the charges against the petitioners. The court emphasized the importance of solid facts and surrounding circumstances in establishing a criminal conspiracy.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned charges against the petitioners and dismissed the revision petition filed by the complainant. The court also emphasized the need for the victim to be reasonably compensated for the mental agony and injuries suffered, irrespective of the discharge of the petitioners.
S.P. Garg, J.
1. Aggrieved by an order dated 07.01.2015 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.34/2001 arising out of FIR No.1178/2009 PS Panipat City by which charges under Sections 364A, 342, 376(2)(f), 511, 506 IPC against Yashwinder Malik (P-1); and under Section 308 IPC read with Section 120B IPC; in the alternative under Section 326 IPC read with Section 120B IPC against Mandeep @ Maan (P2) were ordered to be framed, the petitioners – (P-1 and P-2) have filed the instant petitions to challenge its legality and correctness. Status report is on record. The petitions are contested by the complainant/victim.
2. The victim/complainant has also filed Crl.R.P.591/2015 to challenge the order on charge to the extent that the Trial Court committed error in framing charge under Section 308 IPC and not Section 307 IPC.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file minutely.
4. Admitted position is that the complainant ‘X’ (changed name) had married Arshad Siddiqui on 13.01.2007; it being a love marriage against the wishes of their family members. After the marriage, they started living at Panipat (Haryana) in February, 2007. The complainant joined GIAN College, GT Road, Panipat on 27.05.2007 and worked there for about two and a half years. She also took admission in MBA course in the said college owned and controlled by P-1; her employer.
5. On 20.11.2009, the complainant was physically attacked and acid was thrown on her body; she was taken to Apolo Hospital, Delhi. The Investigating Officer after getting permission from the concerned doctor recorded victim’s statement (Ex.PW-1/A). In the complaint, the victim disclosed that on 19.11.2009 at about 06.00 p.m. when she was going out of her office and was standing outside GIAN College to cross road, a boy aged around 22 – 23 years wearing red T-shirt who had covered his face threw acid on her face. The said boy was having a steel glass in his hand. The boy fled towards traffic lights. She immediately came back to the office where Roopak Malik met her. When she cried loudly, he (Roopak Malik) immediately took out his car and carried her to Prem Hospital for treatment. Her husband Arshad also arrived at Prem Hospital on getting information about the incident. Arshad shifted her to PGI, Rohtak where she stayed for about 2 or 3 hours. Thereafter, her brothers Arshad and Irshad also reached there. She advised her husband not to stay there as her family members were enraged due to her marriage with him. Thereafter, her family members and brothers shifted her to Apolo Hospital, Delhi. She claimed to identify the assailant.
6. During investigation, a bag and a glass (plastic) were seized vide seizure memo on 25.11.2009. Initially FIR was lodged under Section 326 IPC; Section 308 IPC was added subsequently.
7. On scanning the initial statement (Ex.PW-1/A) given by the victim to the Investigating Agency, it reveals that she did not suspect involvement of the petitioners – (P-1 and P-2) in the crime. No role whatsoever was assigned or attributed to any of them. In categorical terms, she had implicated an ‘unknown’ boy aged around 22-23 years for throwing acid on her. She was unable to note the detailed features of the assailant as he had muffled his face and had escaped the spot soon after the incident. The complainant did not attribute any motive to the assailant for throwing acid on her body. Since the culprit could not be traced, the Investigating Agency filed an ‘untraced’ report before the Court concerned on 27.03.2010.
8. Needless to say, injuries sustained by the victim on her vital organs were grave and dangerous. She remained admitted for about ten days in ICU at Apolo Hospital. She had lost vision of both her eyes. She was referred to AIIMS where she remained admitted for about fifteen days. It is informed that she got eighteen surgeries in Apolo Hospital, AIIMS Hospital, B.L. Kapoor Hospital and Medanta Hospital. Number of documents show
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.