CRL.REV.Ps. 212/2017 & 612/2017

Page 1 of 6

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Pronounced on: 6^th May, 2022

+

CRL.REV.P. 212/2017

SURYAKANT

.....Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Sandeep Kumar and Mr. Sachin

Kumar, Advocates

Versus

STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ORS

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. G.M. Farooqui, APP for the

State with SI Rahul

Mr. Nitin Sehgal, Advocate for R-7

to R-12

+

CRL.REV.P. 612/2017, CRL.M.A. 13389/2017

SURYAKANT

.....Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Sandeep Kumar and Mr. Sachin

Kumar, Advocates

Versus

STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ORS

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. G.M. Farooqui, APP for the

State with SI Rahul

Mr. Nitin Sehgal, Advocate for R-2

to R-7

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON

J U D G M E N T

1.

By this common judgment, I shall dispose of these two revision

petitions since the two orders under challenge have been passed in the

same case i.e., Sessions Case No.1086/2016 titled State v. Suresh Suneja

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001735

CRL.REV.Ps. 212/2017 & 612/2017

Page 2 of 6

arising out of FIR No.787/2015 registered under Section 302 read with

Section 201 IPC at P.S. Mandawali, Delhi.

2.

It may be mentioned at this stage that the petitioner Suryakant is the

brother of the deceased. He moved an application under Section 311 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”) for his

examination as a prosecution witness. This application was dismissed by

the then District and Sessions Judge (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi

vide order dated 28^th February, 2017. Thereupon, a revision petition being

CRL.REV.P. 212/2017 was filed praying that the impugned order be set

aside and the application be allowed with directions to the learned Trial

Court to examine the petitioner as an eye-witness in the case.

3.

Subsequently, on 23^rd May, 2017, the accused moved an application

under Section 294 Cr.P.C., on the basis of which examination of certain

witnesses was sought to be dispensed with. The application has been

placed on the record as Annexure P-10 to CRL.REV.P. 612/2017, which

petition has been filed against the orders of the learned Trial Court dated

23^rd May, 2017 allowing the application under Section 294 Cr.P.C.,

dismissing the objections raised by the present petitioner.

4.

Mr. Sandeep Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted

that the petitioner was aggrieved by these orders since the eye-witness was

not coming to testify and further, another witness had turned hostile,

whereas despite the repeated efforts of the petitioner, the Investigating

Officer (I.O.) had not included him as an eye-witness. It was submitted by

the learned counsel that the PCR call had been made from the phone of the

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001735

CRL.REV.Ps. 212/2017 & 612/2017

Page 3 of 6

petitioner, though the cell phone stood in the name of his sister. It was

further claimed that even as per the testimony of Umesh Kumar, he had

rushed to the house of the deceased and along with other brothers of the

deceased, the petitioner had also rushed to the spot. Thus, the petitioner

had been an eye-witness and his testimony was material to the trial.

5.

Similarly, it was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that

the learned Trial Court had erroneously allowed the application of the

accused under Section 294 Cr.P.C. without examining the witnesses. It

may be noted that the same argument of the petitioner having not been

examined have been repeated even in the CRL.REV.P. 612/2017.

6.

Mr. G.M. Farooqui, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the

State opposed these petitions submitting that the learned Trial Court in

both instances had correctly followed the prescribed procedure, inasmuch

as the application under Section 294 Cr.P.C. moved by the accused wo