Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
ASHWANI KHATRI ..... Petitioner
For the Petitioner :Mr. Pardeep Khatri and Mr. Pranjal Kr.
Bhaskar, Advs. For the Respondent : Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State with SI
Manjeet Singh, PS Hari Nagar
1. Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
3. The present petition is filed under Section 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (CrPC) challenging the order dated 07.11.2023 passed by the learned ASJ-02, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, framing charges against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 120B/147/302/307/323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
4. The seminal facts relevant for the purpose of the present petition are as follows: 4.[1] FIR No. 269/2022 dated 12.03.2022 registered at Police Station Hari Nagar for offences under Sections 308/323/34 of the IPC, was lodged at the behest of the complainant/victim, namely, Rahul (Under Trial Prisoner) alleging that on 23.02.2022, his coinmate namely, Ramniwas (deceased) had an altercation with another inmate/accused namely, Rupender. During the altercation, accused prisoner Rupender purportedly threatened the deceased with severe consequences, and to kill him. 4.[2] On 24.02.2022, accused Rupendra called the complainant and the deceased to his floor, which led to a sequence of altercations involving them and other inmates. They physically assaulted the complainant and the deceased by giving blows to their chests and bodies, as well as beat them with sticks, resulting in severe injuries to the deceased and injuries to two other inmates. 4.[3] The jail officials arrived at the spot of the alleged incident and on finding the victims (complainant and deceased along with two other prisoners) injured, got them admitted to DDU Hospital. 4.[4] On 12.03.2023, the victim Ramniwas (UTP) succumbed to the injuries, which led to the registration of the present FIR. Upon investigation, a charge sheet was submitted under Section 173 CrPC before the competent court and the case was committed for trial and the petitioner/accused was made an accused after recording the supplementary statement of the complainant. It is alleged that the petitioner’s involvement can also be made out from the CCTV footage, where he along with other prisoners of Kala Jathedi and Nandu gang can be seen in the barrack kicking and beating the complainant, deceased, and other inmates with sticks. 4.[5] Vide order dated 07.11.2023, the learned Trial Court framed charges against the petitioner under Sections 120B/147/302/307/323/149 of the IPC.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the involvement of the petitioner is solely based on a suspicion arising out of the supplementary statement of the complainant and there is no prima facie material regarding the participation of the petitioner in the alleged crime.
6. The learned counsel submits that Section 149 of the IPC could not be attracted in the present case as the offence was made out from a sudden fight between the prisoners, and it cannot be said that the accused prisoners were sharing a common object as the altercation was not pre-meditated instead it happened in the spur of the moment.
7. The learned counsel contends that the role of the petitioner, as per the CCTV footage, is very limited. He can only be seen ‘hitting a fist and kicking the victim at the end of the fight’. He cannot be seen using any weapon to hurt the victim or the deceased. Therefore, the petitioner is only liable for offence under Section 323 of the IPC.
8. He submits that even if the case of the prosecution is taken at its highest, no offence under Section 302 of the IPC is made out against the petitioner as the present case falls within the contours of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC as the death of the deceased was caused without any premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion.
9. The learned counsel submits that the order of framing of charge under Section 302 of IPC by the trial court is contrary to law as there was no intention and motive of the petitioner to kill the deceased.
10. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State supported the impugned order and vehemently urged that no interference is warranted by this Court in the impugned order.
11. The learned APP submits that there is sufficient evidence against the petitioner to suspect the commission of the alleged offence, and only after examining the charge sheet and other material available on record, the charges were framed by the learned Trial Court and in the given facts and circumstances, there is no error committed by the Trial Court while framing charges against the petitioner.
12. The Learned APP for the State also submits that when a prima facie case is made out against an accused, a detailed enquiry into the merits of the case cannot be conducted at the stage of framing of the charge. It is, thus, contended that the present petition be dismissed.
13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
14. The scope of interference by High Courts while exercising revisional jurisdiction in a challenge to order framing charge is well settled. The power ought to be exercised sparingly, in the interest of justice, so as to not impede the trial unnecessarily. In the case of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander: (2012) 9 SCC 460, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, adverting to a catena of precedents, has noted that the test is whether the allegations, as made from the record of the case, taken at their highest, constitute the offence or not. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also noted that the Court may interfere if the allegations are patently absurd and the basic ingredients of the offence, for which the charge is framed, are not made out.
15. It is trite law that the learned Trial Court while framing charges under Section 228 of the CrPC, is not required to conduct a mini-trial and has to merely weigh the material on record to ascertain whether the ingredients constituting the alleged offence are prima facie made out against the accused persons. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Sajjan Kumar v. CBI: (2010) 9 SCC 368, has culled out the following principles in regards to the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the CrPC:
16. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in Bhawna Bai v. Ghanshyam:
“13. Though the circumstances alleged in the charge-sheet are to be established during the trial by adducing the evidence, the allegations in the charge-sheet show a prima facie case against the accused-Respondents 1 and 2. The circumstances alleged by the prosecution indicate that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. At the time of framing the charges, only prima facie case is to be seen; whether case is beyond reasonable doubt, is not to be seen at this stage. At the stage of framing the charge, the court has to see if there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. While evaluating the materials, strict standard of proof is not required; only prima facie case against the accused is to be seen.”
17. The Court at the stage of framing of charge is to evaluate the material only for the purpose of finding out if the facts emerging when taken at their face value, disclose the existence of ingredients constituting the offence. The Court only has to form an opinion based on the material placed before it that the accused might have committed the alleged offence. Though, for the purpose of conviction, the same has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
18. It is contended that the petitioner was found to be only giving beatings to the deceased even though his death was caused due to sudden cardiac arrest. It is further submitted that the case falls within the provisions of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC as the offence was committed in a sudden fight. It is further contended that the provisions of Section 149 of the IPC cannot be attracted only for the reasons that the petitioner was present with other accused persons at the time when the alleged altercation took place.
19. The FIR was registered on a complaint given by the injured /victim, who specifically narrated that an altercation took place a day prior to the date of the alleged incident between the deceased and coaccused Rupender. It is also specifically alleged that during the altercation, the co-accused Rupender threatened the deceased with severe consequences, and also threatened to kill him. On the date of the alleged incident, the complainant and deceased were called by the coaccused Rupender, and Rupender along with other co-accused persons of Kala Jathedi and Nandu gang assaulted the complainant and the deceased by giving them blows to their chests and body. They were also beaten with sticks, which resulted in severe injuries.
20. The chargesheet further mentions that the CCTV footage shows the petitioner along with other persons beating the complainant and deceased. The petitioner is also seen to be giving blows with sticks to the deceased inside the barrack. The nature of the allegations and the material placed before the learned Trial Court discloses grave suspicion that the petitioner was involved in the offence as alleged. At this stage, this Court finds no error in the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court in forming an opinion that the petitioner might have committed the alleged offence.
21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment of Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohd. Maqbool Magrey: (2022) 12 SCC 657 held as under:
22. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the present case falls within the provisions of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC and that the death of the deceased was caused without any premeditation but due to the sudden fight in the heat of the moment, is a matter of trial. At this stage, it cannot be said that Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC is apparent from the perusal of the material on record. It is apparent that the altercation took place between the inmates. The allegations made by the complainant are also corroborated by the statements of the other witnesses. There are specific allegations that the co-accused Rupender had threatened the deceased a day prior to the date of the alleged incident with severe consequences and had threatened to kill him. The assembly of the persons, who had beaten the accused and other victims is seen in the CCTV footage, which is corroborated with the statement of the witnesses. The assembly of the accused persons, at this stage, cannot be said to be lawful.
23. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that fatal injury was not given by the petitioner and, therefore, he ought not to be charged for offences under Section 302 of the IPC.
24. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramachandran v. State of Kerala: (2011) 9 SCC 257, has clearly laid down the ingredients of Section 149 of the IPC. The relevant excerpt of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder:
25. It is not necessary that a person must have committed some overt act in the actual commission of a crime. Being a member of unlawful assembly, it is enough that he had the knowledge that other co-accused inmates were beating the complainant, deceased, and other inmates at the time, and still he joined the assembly. Thus, once it is prima facie established that the petitioner was part of the unlawful assembly, whether the petitioner caused grievous injuries and gave the fatal blows that caused the death of the deceased himself, is of no consequence. It is not the contention of the petitioner that the injuries caused to the deceased and other victims were accidental. The same were, prima facie, caused consciously by the accused persons, which at this stage, appears to be enough to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
26. In the present case, prima facie, the altercation which took place between the inmates, cannot be deemed to be a sudden act that provoked the petitioner, as he only joined the scuffle at a later stage. Moreover, as noted by the learned Trial Court, the statements of the victim/complainant and other prisoners are consistent with the fact that the accused persons had threatened the deceased with dire consequences and to kill him and they beat the deceased and the complainant by giving them blows on the chest and body, and also gave fiber dandas blows and caused riot, in which the deceased got badly injured and two other inmates also suffered injuries. This shows that the accused persons weren’t deprived of their self-control.
27. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 07.11.2023 passed by the learned Trial Court.
28. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed in the aforesaid terms.
29. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and shall not influence the outcome of the trial. AMIT MAHAJAN, J FEBRUARY 19, 2024 / UG/SK