Crl. Rev.P.18/2013

Page 1 of 5

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

CRL.REV.P. 18/2013

FARIS SHUJA JALAI @ ANUP

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Mohit Mathur, Mr. Jivesh Tiwari &

Ms. Suman, Advocates

versus

CBI

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. P.K.Sharma, Standing Counsel with

Mr. Anil Kr. Singh, Advocates for CBI

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

J U D G M E N T

G. P. MITTAL, J.

1.

By virtue of this Revision Petition, the Petitioner impugns the framing of

the charges under Section 120B read with Sections 420/366-A/372/373

IPC and Section 5 of the Immoral Traffic(Prevention) Act, 1956 (the Act)

and substantive offences under Section 373 IPC and Section 5 of the Act.

2.

The learned counsel for the Petitioner urges that infact initially the

Petitioner

was

arrested

in

a

connected

case

bearing

RC

No.S1/1/2012/S0005 which related to procurement of another girl Riya

Lama @ Riya Mothey. It is urged by the learned counsel for the

2013:DHC:1718

Crl. Rev.P.18/2013

Page 2 of 5

Petitioner that the certificate relied upon by the prosecution to show that

Pranisha @ Alisha Gurang was less than 18 years is doubtful as the name

of Pranisha has been later on introduced by the prosecution and in her

statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded by the Magistrate, she had

given her age as 18 years. It is contended that there is no evidence

collected by the CBI which could be converted into legal evidence during

the course of the trial. Thus, the Petitioner is entitled to be discharged. It

is contended that the prosecuting agency is relying on the conversation

recorded between the Petitioner and the co-accused Anand Vishwa in the

other case which cannot be used against him. Moreover, the same is not

admissible in evidence as at the time the conversation took place, co-

accused Anand Vishwa was in police custody. Thus, the statement made

by him or for that matter conversation in immediate presence of the

police officer which was in the shape of an incriminating statement would

be hit by Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

3.

On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the CBI supports the

order of framing of charges urging that the appreciation of evidence is not

required to be done at the stage of framing of the charge and that a strong

suspicion that the accused has committed the offence is enough for the

purpose of framing the charges.

4.

A complaint dated 24.02.2012 was made by Inspector Seema Pahuja

against the Petitioner and his co-accused. Relevant para of the complaint

is extracted hereunder:

2013:DHC:1718

Crl. Rev.P.18/2013

Page 3 of 5

2013:DHC:1718

Crl. Rev.P.18/2013

Page 4 of 5

5.

As per prosecution case, co-accused Anand Vishwa was already in the

CBI custody in connection with investigation of another case when he

made a disclosure statement about the arrival of the prosecutrix from

Jalpaiguri by Brahamputra Mail and that she was to be used for

prostitution and sold out to the Petitioner herein. There is no gainsaying

that a confession made to a police officer except where much of the

information distinctly relates to discovery of a fact is inadmissible in

evidence. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner was not in police custody

at the time the conversation took place between the Petitioner and his co-

accused Anand Vishwa. I have before me the t