Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 17243
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Saurabh Banerjee, J
Chandra Shekhar Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State (N.C.T. of Delhi) – Respondent
CRL.REV.P. 623/2018 | CRL.M.A. 28537/2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ashutosh Lohia, Shraddha Bhargava, Mukesh Vatsa, Pranav Kumar, Ritik Chandel, Tarun Kaushik
For the Respondents: Satish Kumar, Upasana Bakshi, Divya Bakshi, Ashok Kumar Shukla, Pawan Kumar, Satendra Singh, Lalit Kumar
Framing of charges for criminal conspiracy cannot be based solely on the disclosure statements of co-accused and Call Detail Records (CDRs) lacking transcripts or FSL reports, especially in the absence of any physical recovery or concrete evidence of a meeting of minds.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure - Framing of Charge - Prima Facie Case - Evidence based solely on disclosure statements of co-accused and Call Detail Records (CDRs) without transcripts or physical recovery is insufficient to frame charges for criminal conspiracy. (Para 20, 25, 26)
(B) Evidence Act - Section 27 - Admissibility of Disclosure Statements - Information leading to the discovery of a fact is admissible; however, mere statements regarding a conspiracy without corresponding material discovery are insufficient for framing charges. (Para 23, 24, 25)
Issues: Whether the charges under Sections 120B read with 302 of the IPC could be framed against the petitioner based solely on disclosure statements of co-accused and CDRs without transcripts.
J U D G M E N T
1. By virtue of the present petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure1, 1973, Hereinafter “CrPC, the petitioner inter alia seeks setting aside of the order on charge dated 11.07.2018, Hereinafter “impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-03, New Delhi District, Patiala House in SC No. 275/2017 entitled ‘State vs. Sanjay Kumar & Ors.’ arising out of FIR No.176/2017 dated 30.04.2017 insofar as it directs framing of charges under Sections 120B read with 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Hereinafter “IPC against the petitioner.
2. Briefly put, the present FIR was registered upon receipt of secret information that an inter-State gang had allegedly taken a contract to murder the owner of Orient Taj Hotel and Resort. On 29.04.2017, at about 09:15 PM, a police raiding team intercepted a car, a motorcycle and a scooty. Five persons, namely Hari Ram, Chain Pal Gurjar, Sanjeev Kumar, Sanjay Kumar and Ashok Kumar were found in the car; two persons, namely Chaman Prakash (rider) and Bijender (pillion rider) were on the motorcycle; Manish Khari was riding the scooty. Upon being confronted by the police, accused Bijender allegedly fired a gunshot at SI Krishan Kumar with an unlicensed pistol, however, he managed to duck and narrowly escaped injury. Similarly, accused Manish Khari also fired at Inspector Richpal with an unlicensed pistol and the bullet struck his bullet-proof jacket.
3. Thereafter, the accused were overpowered and apprehended by the police team and one pistol with one live cartridge and three other live cartridges each were recovered from accused Bijender and Manish Khari respectively; one pistol with three live cartridges were recovered from accused Chain Pal Gurjar; one pistol with one live cartridge and one more live cartridge were recovered from accused Sandeep Kumar, and one country made pistol with one live cartridge and one more live cartridge were recovered from accused Hari Ram, Sanjay Kumar, Chaman Prakash and Ashok Kumar.
4. During investigation, in their disclosure statements, the co-accused persons namely Sanjay Kumar, Manish Khari and Chain Pal Gurjar revealed that co-accused Sanjay Kumar met with one Ravi Poopwas, who further introduced them to one Vijay Nagar, who introduced them to Shambhu Sharma and further introduced them to the present petitioner, who is alleged to have given the contract for murdering the respondent no.2/ victim, the petitioner’s brother. Based thereon, the present petitioner was apprehended on 22.07.2017 from Bulandshahar, Uttar Pradesh and was subsequently granted bail vide order dated 01.08.2017 passed by the learned Trial Court.
5. After filing of the chargesheet on 14.07.2017, and supplementary chargesheet on 01.12.2017, the charges against the accused persons including the petitioner were framed by the learned Trial Court vide impugned order dated 11.07.2018 and formal charges were framed on 16.07.2018.
6. Hence, the present petition seeking setting aside of the order dated 11.07.2018 and 16.07.2018 passed by the learned Trial Court.
7. Before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner primarily submitted that the learned Trial Court has erred in framing charges against the petitioner under Sections 120B read with 302 of the IPC as nothing incriminating has been recovered at his instance, so much so, he was neither named in the FIR nor was present at the scene of crime.
8. Also, his involvement, as per learned counsel, in the alleged offence is merely based on the disclosure statements of co-accused Sanjay Kumar, Manish Khari and Chain Pal Gurjar and some Call Detail Records, Hereinafter “CDRs of the petitioner with them. The learned counsel also submitted that the charge of conspiracy, in the absence of any material recovery, cannot be based merely on the disclosure statements of the co-accused persons and cannot in itself establish complicity of th
