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 act independently.

JUDGMENT

Index To The Judgment

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

ARGUMENTS ADDRESSED BEFORE THIS COURT

LAW ON FRAMING OF CHARGE

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

i. Material Against The Respondents/Accused

ii. Role of Trial Court At The Stage of Framing of Charge

iii. Gender Based Presumptions Untenable If Not Provided By Law

CONCLUSION

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J. The present Criminal Revision Petition under Sections 397/401 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (`Cr.P.C.') has been filed on behalf of petitioner/State seeking setting aside of impugned order dated 06.09.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-03, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (`Trial Court') arising out of FIR bearing no. 667/15 under Sections 147/148/149/323/341/307/365/114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (`IPC') and Section 27 of Arms Act, 1959 filed at Police Station Nand Nagri, Delhi.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that an FIR was registered on 30.06.2015, on the statement of complainant Akash, who had stated that one Satpal was murdered three months prior and thereafter, his paternal grandfather, and three uncles had been in judicial custody in that murder case. The complainant had alleged that his house, located near the deceased's residence had been vacated and he had relocated elsewhere. On 30.06.2015, as he had returned to check on his old house, he had been confronted by the accused namely Anil and Johnny, who happened to be the brothers of the deceased Satpal. It was alleged that the accused persons had forcefully apprehended the complainant while he was on his motorcycle, and had physically assaulted him, and thereafter, had forced him into a rickshaw and transported him to Nand Nagri, near their residence, after which, three other persons namely Vikas, Ankush, and Sanjay, had joined them, and together, they had brought the complainant to a location i.e. Shukla Chakki in C-block, Nand Nagri. At this point, accused Anil had used an iron rod, accused Johnny had inflicted head injuries with a stone, and accused Vikas had stabbed the complainant with a knife. It was further stated that in the meanwhile, female relatives of the accused persons, including accused Anil's mother Bala, sister Babita and wife Rekha, accused Johnny's wife Kavita, and accused Sanjay's wife Maya had arrived at the spot and had started instigating the other accused persons to kill the complainant, seeking revenge for Satpal's murder. They had also physically assaulted the complainant, and during the course of altercation, accused Ankush had thrown household utensils and had fired a pistol into the air, after which, someone had contacted the police and the complainant had been taken to the hospital. The police officials had found bloodstains, drag marks, an empty cartridge, and a bullet at the spot of incident.

3. After completion of investigation, the chargesheet was filed against all the accused persons under Sections 147/148/149/323/341/307/365/114 of IPC. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court vide impugned order dated 06.09.2019 had framed charges under Sections 307/34 of IPC against accused persons namely Anil, Jony, Sanjay, Vikas, and Ankush, under Section 365/34 of IPC against accused Anil and Jony, and under Section 27 of Arms Act against accused Ankush. However, the accused persons namely Babita, Bala, Rekha and Kavita were discharged on the ground that there is no evidence for the female accused persons instigating the male accused persons as the male accused persons were already armed with different weapons.

ARGUMENTS ADDRESSED BEFORE THIS COURT

4. Learned APP for the State has argued that the learned Trial Court has failed to consider the contents of the FIR where the names of the accused persons discharged by the Court have been specifically mentioned and specific roles have been assigned in commission of offence to them. It is stated that the learned Trial Court has also failed to consider statement of the complainant recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., conte