Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J.
State - Appellant
Versus
Chaman @ Chamari - Respondent
Crl.Rev.P. 31 of 2019
Decided On : 23-11-2022
The court upheld the validity of charges framed based on initial complaints, emphasizing the necessity of credible evidence for adding charges in criminal proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 323, 341, 506, 34, 397 - Revision against order referring matter for trial - The Additional Sessions Judge found the additional offences under Section 397 and Section 25 of the Arms Act not warranted due to the doubtfulness of subsequent complaints - The complainant's allegations lacked consistency, with discrepancies noted in documentation - The court dismissed the revision as there was no substantive evidence to deviate from the lower court's findings. (Paras 4, 8, 9)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Charge framing - The discretion to frame charges lies with the trial court upon sufficient evidence and not on mere allegations. (Para 8)
Facts of the case:
The complainant alleged that he was assaulted by the respondents while they demanded money, which led to the police recording a FIR for specific IPC sections. The police, however, later added charges based on a subsequent undated complaint, which was scrutinized for credibility.
Findings of Court:
The court concurred with the Additional Sessions Judge's decision, affirming that the charges referred did not support additional, unsubstantiated allegations of armed robbery.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the additional charges based on subsequent complaints were valid and substantiated enough to proceed with.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that a trial court must carefully evaluate the sufficiency and credibility of evidence before framing additional charges beyond the initial complaint.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of offences and prosecution procedures. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 2. court's review of evidence and procedural correctness. (Para 6 , 8) |
| 3. validity of additional charges and dismissal rationale. (Para 7 , 9) |
| 4. dismissal of petition and final order. (Para 10) |
ORDER
CRL.M.A. 479/2019 (for condonation of delay)
1. This is an application for condonation of 03 days delay in filing the present petition.
2. For the reasons stated therein, the delay is condoned.
3. The application is disposed of.
CRL.REV.P. 31/2019
4. This revision is directed against the order dated 19.09.2018, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (North East), whereby, the matter has been sent to the court of Metropolitan Magistrate for conducting the trial against the respondent/accused for offence punishable under Section 323/341/506/34 of the IPC. The learned APP submits that if the subsequent complaint is perused carefully, the same would clearly reveal that the offence under Section 397 of the IPC is made out against the respondents.
5. The submissions made by the learned APP are opposed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
6. I have considered the submissions made out the by respective counsel and perused the record.
7. The facts of the case would show that the complainant Rajender Kumar had made a complaint on 03.11.2013 to the police alleging therein that on 02.11.2013, at about 8:30 PM, when he was going to market for getting his mobile phone sim recharged, the respondents/accused met him on the way, who were under the influence of liquor and asked for money. Since the complainant did not have money to offer them, all the four accused gave beating to the complainant. It was also alleged in the complaint that the accused were in possession of illicit weapons, however, no description of the weapons was mentioned there. It is also seen that on the basis of the compliant FIR was got lodged for offence under Section 323/341/506/34 of the IPC. The police after investigation, however, have submitted the charge sheet for offence under Sections 323/241/506/392/397/34 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The police have added additional offences on the basis of undated complaint.
8. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate found that the offences added in the charge sheet are triable by the court of Sessions, therefore, the matter was referred to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, vide impugned order dated 19.09.2018, learned ASJ has found that the veracity of the subsequent complaint is doubtful. According to him, firstly, the same have been handwritten and secondly, the same have been showed to have been signed in English and contrary to fact that the complainant in his FIR has put his thumb impression. Even in the subsequent complaint, there is no reason as to why the allegations made in the subsequent complaint were not disclosed in the FIR. On the basis of the aforesaid fact, the learned court below has sent the file back to learned CMM, North-East District, KKD court for proceeding with the case in accordance with law. After order dated 19.09.2018 was passed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, it is worth to notice that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate NE-03, in terms of the order dated 27.09.2022 has framed the charges against the respondents for offence under Sections 323/341/506/34 of the IPC. The trial is pending before the said Court.
9. In view of the aforesaid, this court does not find any substance to take a different view and the view which has been already been taken by the Additional Sessions Judge, there is no material to proceed against the respondent for any other offences except the offences for which the charges have been framed.
10. In view thereof the instant petition stands dismissed.
