Full Text
Translation output
.-- @ HIGH COURT OF DELHI WP (Crl) 1126/2012 SUDAMA DEVI ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Shaad Anwar, Advocate
Through Mr.Shaad Anwar, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, Advocate
Through Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, Advocate
CORAM:
Insp. Anil Kumar, SHO, PS, Aman Vihar Mr. Navin Sharma, APP for the State
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAlVlBHffi.
24.01.2013 By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks direction against the respondent to carry out a fair investigation in FIR No. 172/2012, under Sections 304/342/34 IPC registered at Police Station Aman Vihar, Delhi.
Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Mr. Jitender Kumar, Son of Shri Sarju Narayan was the only eye-witness of the incident in question and he found that victim Dinesh was murdered by seven assailants.
Counsel further submits that Mr. Jitender had. named all the seven
2013:DHC:7508 ·.·
~.•II
,.. r;< :;:r
: . • . 1·.
[·:~~I I N ~ r,'r .i :I
:.··.•.j
,, '· ( :::) ji ~ ::·1 @ assailants to the police, but the police had registered the said FIR only against four assailants. Counsel further submits that in the evidence, three assailants· which were left out by the police, were later made witnesses.
Counsel also submits that out of the said three witnesses, one had already turned hostile. Based on these submissions, counsel submits that the police has not canied out fair and impartial investigation in the said FIR, which led to t.~e murder ofthe son ofthe petitioner.
This submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner has been opposed by the learned counsel for the State. Counsel appearing for the
State submits that Mr. Jitender had never named the seven assailants.
Counsel also submits that the FIR was registered at the instance of the said eye-witness and he had named only four assailants against whom the police has registered the said FIR. Counsel further submits that it is for the first time through the present petition, the petitioner as well as the son of the petitioner Santosh has sought implication ofthree more assailants. Counsel also submits that police has carried out the investigation in an most fair manner, without any kind ofbias or partiality.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Nothing has been placed on record by the counsel for the petitioner to
(f) prove that at any stage of time the said accused Jitender had named the three assailants whose involvement is being shown in the present petition. It is not in dispute that Jitender was the only eye-witness in the said instance and he had named only four assailants who were involved in causing grave injuries to the victim which ultimately led to his death.
It is at much later stage, the petitioner now seeks to implicate three more persons, that too, without disclosing any sufficient reason for having not named these three persons at the earliest possible time and also for not disclosing any reason as to what prevented Mr. Jitender to reveal the names ofL.rree more persons when he had lodged the complaint to the police.
In the light ofthe aforesaid, I fmd no merit in the petition. The same is dismissed.
JANUARY 24, 2013 p ~ KAILASH GAMBHIR, J
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAlVlBHffi.
24.01.2013 By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks direction against the respondent to carry out a fair investigation in FIR No. 172/2012, under Sections 304/342/34 IPC registered at Police Station Aman Vihar, Delhi.
Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Mr. Jitender Kumar, Son of Shri Sarju Narayan was the only eye-witness of the incident in question and he found that victim Dinesh was murdered by seven assailants.
Counsel further submits that Mr. Jitender had. named all the seven
2013:DHC:7508 ·.·
~.•II
,.. r;< :;:r
: . • . 1·.
[·:~~I I N ~ r,'r .i :I
:.··.•.j
,, '· ( :::) ji ~ ::·1 @ assailants to the police, but the police had registered the said FIR only against four assailants. Counsel further submits that in the evidence, three assailants· which were left out by the police, were later made witnesses.
Counsel also submits that out of the said three witnesses, one had already turned hostile. Based on these submissions, counsel submits that the police has not canied out fair and impartial investigation in the said FIR, which led to t.~e murder ofthe son ofthe petitioner.
This submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner has been opposed by the learned counsel for the State. Counsel appearing for the
State submits that Mr. Jitender had never named the seven assailants.
Counsel also submits that the FIR was registered at the instance of the said eye-witness and he had named only four assailants against whom the police has registered the said FIR. Counsel further submits that it is for the first time through the present petition, the petitioner as well as the son of the petitioner Santosh has sought implication ofthree more assailants. Counsel also submits that police has carried out the investigation in an most fair manner, without any kind ofbias or partiality.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Nothing has been placed on record by the counsel for the petitioner to
(f) prove that at any stage of time the said accused Jitender had named the three assailants whose involvement is being shown in the present petition. It is not in dispute that Jitender was the only eye-witness in the said instance and he had named only four assailants who were involved in causing grave injuries to the victim which ultimately led to his death.
It is at much later stage, the petitioner now seeks to implicate three more persons, that too, without disclosing any sufficient reason for having not named these three persons at the earliest possible time and also for not disclosing any reason as to what prevented Mr. Jitender to reveal the names ofL.rree more persons when he had lodged the complaint to the police.
In the light ofthe aforesaid, I fmd no merit in the petition. The same is dismissed.
JANUARY 24, 2013 p ~ KAILASH GAMBHIR, J
JUDGMENT