Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 4907
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.
Aayub – Appellant
Versus
State NCT of Delhi – Respondent
Cr.REV.P. 726 of 2022, Cr.M.As. 22101-02 of 2022
Decided On : 19-07-2023
Mr. Shivam Singh, Mr. R.K. Singh and Mr. Rana Prashant, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr.Hemant Mehla, APP, for the state with SI Rajesh Chauhan, with Respondent-2.
Mr. Avadh Kaushik, Ms. Saloni Mahajan, Advocates, for the Respondents.
Mr. Sulaiman Mohd, Khan, Mrs. Taiba Khan, Mr. Bhanu Malhotra, Mr. Akash Bhushan and Mr. Gopeshwar Singh Chandel, Advocates, for the Revisionist.
Necessity of providing reasoning for framing a charge, particularly for serious offences.
Headnote:
Reasoning for Framing Charge - Lack of Reasoning for Framing Charge - The court set aside the order dated 19.04.2022 as it lacked reasoning for framing the charge under Section 307/34 IPC and 27 Arms Act. The matter was remanded back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order dated 19.04.2022 passed by the learned Principal Distt. & Sessions Judge (East) KKD Courts, Delhi, which framed the charge under Section 307/34 IPC and 27 Arms Act against the accused without providing any reasoning.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order lacked reasoning for framing the charge, which is essential even at the stage of framing charge for a serious offence like Section 307 IPC. The court set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration.
Issues: Lack of reasoning for framing the charge under Section 307/34 IPC and 27 Arms Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of providing reasoning for framing a charge, especially for serious offences, and set aside the order due to the absence of reasoning.
Final Decision: The order dated 19.04.2022 was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration.
JUDGMENT
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. (Oral)--The present petitioner has been filed challenging the order dated 19.04.2022 passed by the learned Principal Distt. & Sessions Judge (East) KKD Courts, Delhi.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the same day i.e. on 19.04.2022 the following order was passed:
"SC No. 396/22
State Vs. Aayub
19.04.2022
Present:
Sh. Gaurav Pandey, Ld. Substitute Addl. PP for the State. Accused is present on bail with Counsel Sh. Bhanu Malhotra.
Arguments on charge heard.
Gone through the record and perused the file.
Perusal of the record shows that on 09.06.2015 at about 11.30 pm near H. No. 8, Gali No.4, Aaram Park, Delhi, accused along with his 2-3 associates (since not arrested) in furtherance of their common intention, fired with country made pistol on Shahzad S/o Sh. Shakir by using a country made pistol.
Moreover, the MLC of the victim Shahzad corroborates the fact that he had sustained injury on his person.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, prima facie case for charge for offences under Section 307/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act are made out against the accused. Consequently, the charge for said offences are framed separately against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Let the prosecution witnesses, including the doctors concerned, be summoned for the next date of hearing.
Be put up for prosecution evidence on 22.07.2022.
(Deepak Jagotra)
Principal Distt. & Sessions Judge(East)
KKD Courts, Delhi/19.04.2022"
And thereafter, the charge under section 307/34 IPC and 27 Arms Act was framed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the detailed arguments were made, the learned judge did not record the arguments and also did not give any reasoning for framing of the charge.
4. The perusal of the order clearly indicates that no reasons have been given by the learned Trial Court Judge for framing of charge. It is a settled proposition that at the stage of framing of charge, lengthy orders or giving detailed reasons is not required but at the same time, framing of charge of a serious offence as that under Section 307 IPC cannot be without any reason.
5. In the present case, the order is devoid of any reasons and thus cannot be sustained in eyes of law. The matter is remanded back to the learned Trial Court. Learned Trial Court is directed to hear the arguments of the prosecution and the defence on charge afresh and pass the order in accordance with the law.
6. The order dated 19.04.2022 is set aside. This Court has not gone into the merits of the case and the defence may raise all possible contentions before the learned Trial Court.
7. In view of the above, the present petition along with pending applications stands disposed of.
