Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 413
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J
STATE NCT OF DELHI – Appellant
Versus
LUCKY KAPOOR & ANR. – Respondent
CRL.REV.P. 825/2024
LAKSH KHANNA
The absence of incriminating evidence against the accused justifies their discharge, emphasizing that a trial requires substantial proof of guilt.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 397, 401, and 482 - Revision petition for condonation of delay and challenging discharge of accused - The court condoned a delay of 210 days in filing the revision petition and took it on board - The learned ASJ discharged the respondents due to lack of incriminating evidence against them, as the victim's statements did not attribute any role to them in the abduction - The court found no basis to interfere with the ASJ's order. (Paras 2, 8, 18, 20)
(B) Discharge of Accused - The court emphasized that the victim's statements did not provide sufficient evidence to connect the respondents to the crime, thus affirming the principle that a trial should only proceed with adequate evidence. (Paras 10, 16)
Facts of the case:
The revision petitioner/State challenged the discharge of two accused in a kidnapping case, arguing that their presence during the victim's detention implicated them in the crime. However, the victim's statements exonerated them, leading to their discharge.
Findings of Court:
The court found no incriminating evidence against the respondents and upheld the ASJ's decision to discharge them, stating that the prosecution could not prove guilt.
Issues: The main issues were whether the victim's statements could be interpreted as implicating the respondents and the sufficiency of evidence to proceed with a trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of incriminating evidence against the respondents justified their discharge, reinforcing that a trial requires substantial evidence to proceed.
Result: Revision petition dismissed.
CRL.M.A. 19109/2024 (exemption) Exemption granted, subject to just exceptions.
Let requisite compliances be made within 01 week.
The application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.A. 19108/2024 (condonation of delay) By way of the present application filed under section 482 of the CodeofCriminalProcedure1973(‘Cr.P.C.’),therevision petitioner/State seeks condonation of 210 days’ delay in filing the revision petition.
2.For the reasons stated in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed.
3.Delay in filing the revision petition is condoned. 4.The revision petition is taken on Board. 5.The application stands disposed-of. CRL.REV.P. 825/2024 6.By way of the present petition filed under sections 397 and 401 read with section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the revision petitioner/State impugns order dated 26.07.2023 made by the learned ASJ-04 (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in case SC No.191/2021 (‘impugned order’), arising from case FIR No. 1341/2015 dated 11.09.2015 under section 365 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’) registered at P.S.: Rajouri Garden, New Delhi.
7.By way of the impugned order, the learned ASJ has been pleased to discharge the respondents, namely Lucky Kapoor and Tarun Bhalla from the case, while framing charges against the other 04 accused persons under section 364-A/34 IPC.
8.The reasoning, based on which the learned ASJ has discharged the respondents, is narrated in the following extracts of the impugned order :
- “I have gone through the contents of FIR which was recorded on the basis of statement made by complainant Rahul Singh as well as the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. as well as statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. of victim Abhishek. The perusal of the said statement reveals that the victim Abhishek had assigned specific roles to accused persons namely Alok Kumar, Vishal, Manoj and Shadab. The statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of victim also reveals that initially, the aforesaid accused persons demanded a sum of Rs.10,000/-, then Rs. 20,000/-, then Rs. 40,000/- and thereafter, a sum of Rs. 2 Lakhs as ransom. Perusal of the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of victim Abhishek reveals that in respect of accused Lucky Kapoor and Tarun, he has only alleged that while he was kept in the said premises, accused Tarun and Lucky had come upstairs and in their presence, the other accused persons have stated to them that Abhishek had committed fraud with them and that is why, they have abducted Abhishek. Except this, no other role has been attributed to accused Tarun and Lucky. The statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. of victim Abhishek reveals that he has not attributed any role to accused Tarun and Lucky in the commission of offence. Rather in statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C., victim Abhishek had specifically stated “Wahan par do ladke Lucky aur Tarun the, jo bekasoor hain, unhone muje kuch nahi kaha, baki logo ke khilaaf sakht karyavayi ki jaaye”.
- The combined effect of both the statements of victim Abhishek reveals that there is no incriminating material on record to connect accused Lucky Kapoor and Tarun Bhalla for commission of offence as mentioned in the charge-sheet, Accordingly, they are discharged in the present case. They are directed to furnish bail bonds u/s 437A Cr.P.C. in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety of the like amount within 03 working days from today.”
- (emphasis supplied) 9.Learned APP submits, that the learned ASJ has erred in discharging the respondents, proceeding only on the statement made by the victim Abhishek and taking that statement as the correct interpretation of the respondents’ role in the offence which the State alleges they have committed under section 364-A and section 34 IPC.
10.Learned APP argues that the victim’s interpretation of the role of the respondentsintheoffencecannotbetakenasthejudicial interpretation of such role; and whether or not, the respondents are guilty of commission of any offence, can only be decided after conclusion of the trial based on the evidence that comes to be adduced.
11.In p
