CRL.REV.P. 333/2018 Page 1 of 8

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

CRL.REV.P. 333/2018

Date of decision: 12^thMarch, 2021

IN THE MATTER OF:

SALMAN & ORS

..... Petitioners

Through

Mr. Ajayinder Sangwan, Advocate

versus

STATE & ANR

..... Respondents

Through

Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, APP for the

State

Mr. Sumer Kumar Sethi, Advocate

for respondent No.2

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.

1.

This revision petition filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C is directed

against the order dated 07.03.2018, passed by the Additional Session Judge-

06, (South-East), Saket Courts, New Delhi, in SC No. 130/2017, framing

charges against the petitioner for offences under Sections 308, 385, and 34

IPC. It is stated that on 10.10.2016, at about 3:25 A.M. an information was

received that a man has been stabbed in front of Okhla Sabzi Mandi. The

said message was entered vide DD No.6-PP at Police Post S.N. Puri.

2.

In the hospital the complainant/respondent No.2 told the police that he

conducts business of selling vegetables near Gate No. 2, Okhla Sabzi Mandi.

It is alleged in the FIR that one Anwar/petitioner No.4 herein and his

children Salman/petitioner No.1 herein, Shahrukh/petitioner No.2 herein and

2021:DHC:920

CRL.REV.P. 333/2018 Page 2 of 8

Imran/petitioner No.3 herein, who also do business of selling vegetables

used to demand money from the complainant/respondent No.2 for

conducting business there. It is stated that on 10.10.2016, the petitioners

came to the complainant, Anwar was armed with a Danda, Imran and

Shahrukh were armed with iron rods and Salman was armed with a knife.

They demanded money from the complainant. It is stated that Shahrukh hit

the complainant with the iron rod on his head. It is stated that all four of

them started hitting the complainant. It is further stated that when the

petitioner’s brother, one Naazim, rescued him, Salman ran after him and that

they also took away Rs.4,800/- of the petitioner. It is stated that the brother

of the petitioner, Naazim, gave a call to the Police. The accused left after

threatening the complainant of dire consequences. On the said statement,

FIR No.609/2016 was registered on 10.10.2016, for offences under Sections

384/308/34 IPC. After investigation charge-sheet has been filed. In the

charge-sheet it is stated that from the investigation conducted and the

statements of the witnesses there is sufficient evidence for filing charge-

sheet against the petitioners under Sections 308, 384, 34 IPC.

3.

On 07.03.2018, by the order impugned herein, the learned Additional

Session Judge-06, (South-East), Saket Courts, found that prima facie a case

under section 308 IPC is made out against the accused/petitioners herein and

charges under Sections 308, 384 and 34 IPC were accordingly framed. The

petitioners pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. This order has been

challenged in the present revision petition.

4.

Mr. Ajayinder Sangwan, learned counsel for the petitioner states that

there is a contradiction between DD entry and the version narrated by the

2021:DHC:920

CRL.REV.P. 333/2018 Page 3 of 8

victim in the FIR. He states that the DD entry shows that a person was

stabbed while the case in the FIR is only for assault. Mr. Ajayinder Sangwan

has taken this Court through the MLC report which states that the nature of

injury is only simple. Mr. Sangwan also places emphasis on a medical

opinion wherein it has been opined by Dr. Shashi Kant Yadav, Junior

Resident, AIIMS, that the nature of injury is simple and the weapon used is

blunt and