Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.
The State Govt of NCT of Delhi – Appellant
Versus
Afaq Hussain Ansari & Ors. – Respondents
Cr.REV.P. 200 of 2018
Decided On : 02-02-2023
Discharge - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 451/354/354B/427/324/376/511/34 of IPC, Section 4/8 of POCSO
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, the State, filed a petition challenging the order discharging the accused persons for various offences under the IPC and POCSO. The case involved allegations of teasing, attempted rape, and threats made by the accused persons against the complainant and her family members.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the learned Trial Court had conducted a roving enquiry into the merits of the case and had discharged the accused persons based on discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses, which was not permitted in law at the stage of passing order on charge. The court also noted that certain findings made by the Trial Court, such as the possibility of self-inflicted injuries and the complainant's alleged plan to falsely implicate the accused, were untenable in law.
Issues: The issues involved the discharge of the accused persons based on the Trial Court's assessment of the witness statements and other observations, as well as the application of legal principles regarding framing of charges and discharge of accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Trial Court's assessment of witness statements and other observations at the stage of passing order on charge was not in accordance with the legal principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The court emphasized that the Trial Court should not act as a mere post office and should exercise its judicial mind to determine whether a case for trial had been made out.
Final Decision: The impugned order discharging the accused persons was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the Trial Court for passing order on charge afresh, after hearing the parties, in accordance with law.
JUDGMENT
Swarana Kanta Sharma, J. The petitioner i.e. State has filed the present petition impugning the order dated 18.09.2017 passed by learned ASJ-01, Special Judge (POCSO) Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi whereby accused persons have been discharged for offences punishable under Sections 451/354/354B/427/324/376/511/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC") and Section 4/8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ("POCSO") in case FIR No.252/2014 registered at Police Station M.S. Park, Delhi.
2. The present FIR was registered on the complaint of `S. wherein it was stated that on 21.04.2014, her mother, maternal aunt and sister-in-law had gone to Karkardooma Courts for meeting her father and his sons, whereas the complainant `S. and her cousin `T. were present at the house. It was alleged that at about 1:00-2:00 PM, when she was present at the ground floor, accused persons Tayyab, Tahir and Babar and Afaaq suddenly entered the house and started teasing her and when she protested, they torn her clothes and attempted to rape her and also pressed soft parts of the body, as a result of which, she sustained injuries and their house was also ransacked. It was stated that complainant's cousin `T. had seen the incident from upstairs and had raised alarm, due to which, certain passerby reached the spot and saved her. It was further alleged that while leaving the ouse, the accused persons had threatened the complainant to rape her in future and kill her parents also. Thereafter, the victim was taken to GTB Hospital for medical examination. During investigation, the statement of the complainant `S. as well as other witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC, and statement of complainant under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 06.05.2014.
3. Learned APP for the State submits that perusal of order on charge passed by learned Trial Court reveals that the learned Trial Court has conducted the trial itself at the stage of charge and has tried to appreciate the inconsistency in the statement of the witnesses, as well as other observations which have been made in the order on charge, such as those relating to Call Detail Records (CDR), could not have been made at the time of passing order on charge.
4. Learned counsel for respondents, on the other hand, states that there is no infirmity in the order passed by learned Trial Court. It is stated that the learned Trial Court has passed a reasoned judgment and it is only grave suspicion which may result into framing of charge. It is also argued on behalf of learned counsel for respondents that the present case was filed as a counter-blast to the cross FIR which was filed against the complainant's relatives, by the present accused persons, who stood convicted under Section 302 IPC. It is also stated that perusal of FIR reveals that the offence in question as mentioned in the FIR could not have taken place, as on the day of alleged incident, the accused persons could not have been at the alleged spot of incident.
5. The rival contentions on behalf of parties have been heard and the material on record has been perused.
6. The concluding portions of the impugned order, vide which the accused persons have been discharged, reads as under:
"14. In view of glaring Inconsistency in the statement of the victims including complainant and MLC, it is apparent that the complainant has created plan to falsely implicate the accused persons for the apparent reason that all male family members of the complainant are in jail in connection with murder of neighbour Ibrahim Ansari, who was brother of accused persons and another FIR was registered against their family members regarding quarrel at KKD on the same day
15. Therefore keeping in view the glaring inconsistency in the statements, location of all accused persons except Mohd. Azruddin Babar was not at the place of occurrence, MLC of victims which do not corroborate their statement, possibility of self inflicted injury cannot
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the Trial Court should exercise its judicial mind to determine whether a case for trial has been made out and should not conduct a roving e....
At the stage of framing charges, the Court should only consider whether a prima facie case is made out, without conducting a mini trial or examining the probative value of evidence.
At the initial stage, the truth, veracity, and effect of the evidence are not to be meticulously judged, and the accused's defense is not to be looked into when seeking discharge under Section 227 of....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a prima facie case and the evaluation of material by the court before framing charges under sections 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to avoid gender-based presumptions in the legal process unless provided by law and to assess each individual's involvement in a criminal a....
Defective investigation does not preclude prosecution; an accused cannot be discharged solely on this ground if sufficient evidence exists against them.
The court emphasized that at the stage of framing of the charge, the trial court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record to determine if there is ground for presuming that the ac....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a prima facie case for proceeding against the accused and the presence of grave suspicion against the accused in determining th....
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
