Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J.
Amir Khan - Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation - Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition No. 865 of 2019; Criminal Miscellaneous Appeal No. 33932 of 2019
Decided On : 04-09-2019
Criminal Conspiracy - Indian Penal Code - Sections 302, 120B, 147, 323, 504, 506 - Arms Act - Sections 3, 25 - The court discussed the charges framed against the petitioner under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act, and the related proceedings. The court analyzed the evidence presented by both the petitioner and the CBI, and concluded that there was prima facie evidence of a conspiracy to silence the father of the prosecutrix and his family members through violence executed in a planned manner. The court found that the policemen knowingly or deliberately became accessory to the crime by preparing and registering a false FIR and other relevant documents to frame the father of the prosecutrix. The court held that the plea that the accused acted under the command of his superior can only be tested during the course of trial. The court dismissed the Revision Petition, stating that the petitioner still has the opportunity to file an appeal if convicted by the trial court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order on charge and related proceedings passed by the Court of District and Sessions Judge. The case involved the framing of charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act against the petitioner, who was arraigned as an accused in two cases. The petitioner argued that the charges were not contemplated by the investigating agency and that he was being tried for serious offences without adequate opportunity to defend himself.
Finding of the Court:
The court found prima facie evidence of a conspiracy to silence the father of the prosecutrix and his family members through violence executed in a planned manner. The court concluded that the policemen knowingly or deliberately became accessory to the crime by preparing and registering a false FIR and other relevant documents to frame the father of the prosecutrix. The court held that the plea that the accused acted under the command of his superior can only be tested during the course of trial.
Issues: The issues involved the framing of charges against the petitioner under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act, the alleged conspiracy to silence the father of the prosecutrix and his family members, and the role of the policemen in preparing and registering a false FIR and other relevant documents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the prima facie evidence of a conspiracy to silence the father of the prosecutrix and his family members through violence executed in a planned manner. The court also considered the role of the policemen in knowingly or deliberately becoming accessory to the crime by preparing and registering a false FIR and other relevant documents.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the Revision Petition, stating that the petitioner still has the opportunity to file an appeal if convicted by the trial court.
JUDGMENT :
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J.
1. Vide the present revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the order on charge dated 13.08.2019, charges dated 13.08.2019 and related proceedings thereto passed by the Court of District and Sessions Judge (West), Tis Hazari, Delhi.
2. Brief facts of the case are that FIR No. 89/2018 dated 03.04.2018 was registered at PS - Makhi, District Unnao for the offences punishable under Sections 323/504/506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC") read with Sections 3/25 Arms Act against Surender Singh @ Pappu on the complaint of Tinku. Another FIR bearing No. 90/2018 dated 04.04.2018 was registered at aforementioned Police Station - Makhi for the offences punishable under Sections 147/323/504 IPC against Vineet Mishra @ Vinay Mishra, Birender Singh @ Bauwa Singh, Ram Sharam Singh @ Sonu Singh, Jaideep Singh @ Atul Singh Senger, Shashi Pratap Singh @ Suman Singh.
3. Later on, FIR No. 89/2018 was converted into RC-9S/2018 and FIR No. 90/2018 was converted in RC-10S/2018. Since Surender Singh @ Pappu expired in judicial custody on 09.04.2018, Section 302 IPC was added by CBI in RC-10S/2018. The petitioner herein arraigned as accused in RC-9S/2018.
4. Mr. Hari Haran, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that as per the investigation of the CBI in RC-9S/2018, Surender Singh @ Pappu was implicated in a false case. It is an admitted case of the petitioner, being a duty officer and also a wireless operator on 03.04.2018 at Police Station - Makhi that he never left the Police Station and has only prepared the seizure memo being part of his official duties. Petitioner was not in touch with other police officer who proceeded towards the spot, on the instructions of SP Unnao, through any mode of communication including mobile phone. Thus, petitioner has nothing to do with the beatings given to Surender Singh @ Pappu. This was the reason that the petitioner was not even arrested by CBI and without arrest, chargesheet was filed against him in RC-9S/2018, which relates to the falsification of records only.
5. It is submitted that on 13.04.2018, charges under Sections 147/148/149/323/504/506 and 302 IPC were framed in RC-10S/2018 against Vineet Mishra @ Vinay Mishra, Birendra Singh @ Bauwa Singh, Ram Sharan Singh @ Sonu Singh, Jai Deep Singh @ Atul Singh Sengar, Shashi Pratap Singh @ Suman Singh and Shailender Singh @ Shalu by the Court of Special Judge, CBI Lucknow. In other words, trial commenced in the RC10S/2018. However, due to certain factors, both the above RCs alongwith other matters were transferred to Delhi in the Court of Sh. Dharmesh Sharma, District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi. On 13.08.2019, impugned orders were passed, whereby joint charges were framed in RC9S/2018 and RC-10S/2018 by the aforementioned Court.
6. Learned Senior Advocate submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the charges which were not even contemplated by the investigating agency i.e. CBI. The illegal nature of charges especially under Section 302 IPC is evident from the fact that petitioner was not part of RC-10S/2018 and still murder charges have been framed against him.
7. Mr. Hari Haran also submits that the contents of the charges framed against petitioner under Section 302 IPC read with Section 120 IPC shows that the petitioner alongwith other police officials sent Surender Singh @ Pappu to judicial custody fully knowing that injuries were dangerous. In other words, it has been alleged that petitioner failed in providing adequate medical treatment to Surender Singh @ Pappu. However, learned Trial Court has overlooked the relevant record that as per GD No. 52/19.05, Surender Singh @ Pappu had six injuries and was immediately sent to District Hospital by the petitioner under the care of constable Pankaj Kumar and SI Sushil Kumar.
8. It is argued that chargesheet in RC-10S/2018, categorically reveals that timely treatment was provided to Surender Singh @ Pappu. From 03.04.2018 till his death,
AI
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
