Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
MAJOR DHARMINDER SINGH - Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF DELHI NCT - Respondent
CRL.REV. P. 476 OF 2016
Decided on : 30-10-2018
Criminal Conspiracy - Indian Penal Code - Sections 120B, 365, 395 - Arms Act - Sections 29, 54, 59
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an officer in the Indian Army, was charged with criminal conspiracy for dacoity and violations of the Arms Act based on allegations that his pistol was used in the commission of the offence.
Finding of the Court:
The Trial Court erred in holding that there was prima facie evidence of the petitioner's involvement in criminal conspiracy. The petitioner was discharged of the offences under the Indian Penal Code but was to continue facing trial for the offences under the Arms Act.
Issues: The main issue was whether there was sufficient evidence to establish the petitioner's involvement in criminal conspiracy for dacoity and related offences.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the seriousness of an offence is not sufficient grounds for framing a charge, and that there must be grave suspicion of the accused's involvement. Mere acquaintance with the co-accused or contact around the time of the offence does not necessarily establish criminal conspiracy.
Final Decision: The impugned order was partly set aside, discharging the petitioner of the offences under the Indian Penal Code but requiring him to continue facing trial for the offences under the Arms Act.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
CRL.REV. P. 476/2016 & CRL.M.A.10806/2016 (stay)
1. Petitioner impugns order-on-charge dated 31.03.2016, whereby, the Trial Court has held that there is enough material to frame charges against the petitioner under Sections 120B IPC, 365 read with section 120B IPC, 395 read with Section 120B IPC for criminal conspiracy for dacoity and Sections 29, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act.
2. Petitioner is an officer serving in the Indian Army.
3. The allegations in the FIR are that the complainant – Prabhay Mahto was employed in the Accounts Department in Alok Steel Company, District Raigarh, Jharkhand. On 05.09.2015, his employer instructed him to travel to Delhi on 07.09.2015 along with one Lakshmi Singh. The employer informed him that they had to carry some valuables. On 07.09.2015, they travelled from Raigarh, Jharkhand to Delhi by train. When the train reached Ghaziabad station, Brajesh Pandey, an employee working in Gurgaon office called them up to inquire about their location. The train reached New Delhi Railway Station at about 1:30 pm. The complainant – Prabhay Mahto and Lakshmi Singh were received at the Station by Vijay Mishra and Sunil Driver.
4. All four of them sat in a Duster Car in which Brajesh Pandey was already sitting. As per the complainant, Sunil Driver was sitting on the driver seat, Brajesh Pandey was sitting on the front passenger seat, the complainant was sitting on the rear seat with Lakshmi Singh on his right and Vijay Mishra on his left. It is alleged that when they left from the Railway Station at about 2 pm, one motorcycle came from behind and intercepted their car. One person got off from the motorcycle and was carrying a wireless set. He is alleged to have pushed Sunil driver inside and sat on the driver side. Another person came from the right side and took out Brajesh Pandey from the car and took him to a car standing behind their vehicle. Thereafter, one Sikh gentleman came and sat in the front passenger seat. Thereafter, one more person, who was carrying a pistol, came and sat on the rear side while pushing Lakshmi Singh on to the complainant. The person is alleged to have taken the mobile phones of the complainant, Sunil and Lakshmi Singh and removed their SIMs. Thereafter, both the vehicles are alleged to have gone to a deserted place under Geeta Colony Flyover and asked all the persons to step down. They were thereafter taken to a pit and made to sit down and threatened that if they looked up they will be shot. After some time, when they looked up they found that the place was deserted. Thereafter, they called the police and lodged a complaint.
5. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed. As per the charge sheet, suspicion fell on Sunil Driver. He was interrogated. During interrogation, Sunil driver is alleged to have confessed that he had planned this dacoity with one Shardha and 3-4 more boys. Substantial amount of cash was recovered from Sunil. Investigation led the police to one Beant Singh from whose possession, it is alleged, that some money as well as one pistol and one revolver were recovered. The pistol that was recovered from Beant Singh belongs to the petitioner. On an inquiry, Beant Singh also produced the arms licence of the petitioner. As per the prosecution, apart from the fact that the pistol of the petitioner was recovered from Beant Singh, there were SMSs connection between the petitioner, Beant Singh and co-accused Sandeep.
6. As per the charge sheet, it is stated that at the time of the commission of the offence, the location of the petitioner was in Jammu & Kashmir, where he was posted. As per the charge sheet, there was no evidence to show criminal conspiracy for the commission of offence under sections of Indian Penal Code. However, since he had handed over his revolver to Beant Singh, offence under the Arms Act were made out. Accordingly, charge sheet was filed against the petitioner only under the Arms Act.
7. Trial Court, by order-on-charge dated
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
