The proper evaluation of evidence and the burden of proof on the accused are crucial in determining the framing of charges in a criminal case.

1. The first information report (FIR) No.76/2007 of the subject case was registered on the compliant of Phool Singh, a delivery-man, engaged by a firm named and styled as Kalkaji Gas Service, the duties entrusted to him being to take gas cylinders from the godown of his employer in a three wheeler scooter (TSR) and deliver the same to the respective consumers, as per instructions.

2. It is alleged that, on 16.03.2007, he having carried twenty-two gas cylinders from the godown of his employer, had reached near house No.1520 in C.R. Park, New Delhi at about 1:45 p.m., he was accosted by four persons who had come to the place in an Indica car bearing registration No. DL-8CG-7982. He alleged that the said four persons had introduced themselves as press reporters of newspaper Hindustan People and confronted him with accusation that he was engaged in illicit business of taking out gas from the cylinders which he was deployed to deliver. They allegedly forcibly took out two gas cylinders from the vehicle and started making a video film with a camera they were carrying and while doing so extended threats that they would defame him by publishing this information in the press and, if he did not want to be so defamed, he should pay Rs.10,000/, also extending threats that if he would not comply with the said demand, he might also be done to death.

3. The complainant alleged that these persons had earlier also extended threats to him in a similar manner and had extorted money from him in the past. He stated that he had handed over Rs.2,500/- (which he was carrying at that point of time) to one of the said persons named Baijnath Dubey, to be told that this was not sufficient and that he should call for the balance Rs.7,500/-. As per the complainant, on his telephonic call, his brother Amar Singh, who was similarly engaged in the job of gas supply had come on the scene and while he was pleading with the four persons, a large number of public persons had gathered who, upon learning about the intent of the four persons, started assaulting them in which process two of them fled away, while two persons named Baijnath Dubey and Pawan Kumar were apprehended and handed over to the police.

4. The complainant also stated in the FIR that the identity of the two persons, who had fled away, had been revealed to be Sanjay Kumar Tiwari and Sahid, the person named Sanjay Kumar Tiwari being the respondent herein.

5. The FIR was registered vide No.76/2007 and investigation into offences punishable under sections 419/384/34 IPC was carried out. During the course of investigation, some identity cards purporting to be of a newspaper named Hindustan People were seized from the persons who had been apprehended from the spot.

6. The presence of the respondent and other person named Sahid could not be secured immediately. The investigation resulted in a report (charge sheet) under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) dated 11.05.2007 being submitted in respect of the two initial arrestees, namely, Baijnath Dubey and Pawan Kumar, the names of the respondent and Sahid being shown in column No.2.

7. Later, the presence of the respondent and Sahid were also secured and further investigation in their respect culminated in a supplementary charge sheet, dated 02.04.2009 being submitted. It may be added that in the supplementary charge sheet, it was indicated that the investigation respecting the identity cards (which had been used) was still pending and a supplementary report in that regard would be submitted in due course. The trial court record, however, would show that such supplementary report respecting the identity cards has not been submitted till date.

8. After the supplementary charge sheet had been submitted, the Metropolitan Magistrate considered the question of charge. By order dated 17.03.2015, she found prima facie charge made out for offences under Sections 392/419/468/471/34 IPC against Sanjay Kumar Tiwari (the respondent) and Sahi