Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 08.02.2024
STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State
Adarsh Nagar.
Through: Mr. Vishal Raj Sehijpal through V.C.
Ms. Sunita Arora, Adv. DHCLSC, for R-4.
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) challenging the order dated 12.03.2008 (hereafter ‘the impugned order’), passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (‘ASJ’) in FIR No. 367/2006 registered under Section 302/307/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860(‘IPC’).
2. The learned ASJ by impugned order has framed charges against the respondent /accused under Sections 323/324/325/ 304/34 IPC.
3. The State is aggrieved by the impugned order to the extent that the charges under Section 302/307 are not framed against the respondents.
4. The FIR was registered pursuant to a compliant given by one Satish. The complainant had stated that his family is running a dairy farm, and one Laxmi is their neighbour. He alleged that both the families, that is, of the complainant and Laxmi, often used to quarrel with each other on the issue of throwing of cow dung.
5. It was alleged that on 27.06.2006, at around 11:45 pm, the complainant along with his three brothers, namely, Rakesh, Vikas and Satender had gone to their dairy farm where they saw that respondent namely Laxmi, Devender, Anil and Ashfaq @ Mannu were threatening the complainant’s servant present at their dairy farm.
6. It was further alleged that Devender and Anil were carrying swords and Laxmi and Ashfaq had dandas. Upon reaching the dairy a scuffle took place between the respondents, and the complainant and his brothers. It was also alleged that one Sonu, who is stated to be an associate of Anil, also came on the spot and attacked the complainant and his brothers.
7. It was alleged that the complainant and his brothers were beaten up by the respondents and sustained injuries. After the alleged incident the Complainant and his brothers were taken to Babu Jagjivan Ram Hospital.
8. The MLC conducted at Babu Jagjivan Ram Hospital indicated all the injured are fit for statement except one Rakesh. Rakesh was referred to Trauma Centre where he succumbed to his injuries on 28.09.2006. Vikas (injured/brother of the complainant) later also went to St. Stephen's Hospital and where he obtained treatment and remained admitted from 28.06.06 till 30.06.06 and the doctor upon finding a fracture on the right frontal bone opined the nature of injury to be “grievous”. ANALYSIS Scope of interference under Revisional Jurisdiction
9. The present petition has been filed under Section 401 of the CrPC. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishnan v. Krishnaveni: (1997) 4 SCC 241, has noted that in the matter of exercise of power of revision, Section 397 and Section 401 of the CrPC are required to be read together.
10. Before delving into the facts of the present case, it is important to note that it is a settled law that the scope of interference by High Courts while exercising revisional jurisdiction is limited and ought to be exercised sparingly, in the interest of justice, so as to not impede the trial unnecessarily.
11. The power and jurisdiction of a higher court while exercising powers under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is the power to call for and examine records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularities of any proceeding or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law or the perversity which has crept in such proceedings. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chandra (2012) 9 SCC 460, has considered and explained the scope of Section 397 of Cr.P.C. The relevant paragraphs of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chandra (supra) are reproduced as under:
12. Prosecution has challenged the order passed by the learned Trial Court framing charges while exercising power under Section 228 of the CrPC. It is trite law that the 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:
13. In the case of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court, adverting to a catena of precedents, has also noted that the test for interference is whether the allegations, as made from the record of the case, taken at their highest, are patently absurd and whether the basic ingredients of the offence, for which the charge is framed, are not made out.
14. In view of the above, it is clear that this Court, at this stage, is not required to reevaluate the evidence or hold a mini trial as the same would tantamount to this Court assuming appellate jurisdiction. Thus, all that has to be seen is whether the learned Trial Court has adequately appreciated the material on record and whether on the material placed before it, the Court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed the offence as alleged.
15. In the present case, the main thrust of the prosecution is on the point that the ingredients of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC are satisfied as the respondents gave beatings to the injured and the deceased. The death of the deceased was caused by injuries inflicted from giving blows from a stick / danda, and the respondents are erroneously discharged by the learned Trial Court for offences under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC.
16. The learned Trial Court after going through the material on record noted that there is nothing to show that the accused persons had the common intention to commit the murder of the deceased (Rakesh), and prima facie observed that the incident occurred on a sudden quarrel, which took place between the parties, since the accused persons were present at the place of incident and as per the FIR complainant along with other injured had gone for a walk when the incident took place.
17. The learned Trial Court had also gone through the nature of injuries and rightly observed that the accused persons cannot escape from the liability of having the knowledge that the bodily injuries being caused on deceased (Rakesh) were such as were likely to cause death and, charged the accused person for offence under Section 304 of the IPC.
18. The learned Trial Court also noted the fact that the Investigating Officer had failed to collect the opinion on the nature of weapons being used by the accused. However, the learned Trial Court considered the two incision wounds suffered by the injured Satish, and observed that it could not be presumed that the injuries were not caused by a sharp edged weapon. The learned Trial Court also considered that the doctors had opined that the injuries suffered by the victim Satish were simple in nature. Thus, the learned Trial Court framed charges for the offence under Sections 324/34 of the IPC against the accused persons taking into account the number and nature of injuries suffered by the injured Satish. It also noted the opinion of the doctor regarding the same and the fact that the victim Satish was found to be fit to tender a statement soon after the incident.
19. The learned Trial Court further held that the Court cannot presume, merely on the basis of conjectures, that the nature of injuries caused by the accused persons are sufficient to hold them liable for the offence under Sections 302 or 307 IPC.
20. The learned Trial Court while passing the impugned order was also cautious of the fact that, at the stage of the framing of charge the learned Trial Court cannot go into the deep analysis of the case and only a prima facie inference is warranted.
21. The learned Trial Court has rightly opined that the Court cannot shirk away from the responsibility of coming to a definite conclusion as to what prima facie offence is made out from the facts and circumstances, and the same is plausible to ascertain from the material placed on record. The learned Trial Court in terms of Section 216 of the Cr.P.C is also at liberty to alter the charge if it deems appropriate at any stage.
22. This Court is of the opinion that the learned Trial Court has evidently applied its judicial mind and considered the totality of the acts before framing the charges. In view of the foregoing discussion, no ground is made out to warrant any interference with the impugned order.
23. It is also stated that since the passing of the impugned order the trial has not proceeded against the respondents.
24. In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed.
25. The Fir was registered way back in the year 2006. The learned Trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial, in an expeditious manner. AMIT MAHAJAN, J FEBRUARY 8, 2024 “SK”