Full Text
CRL.REV.P. 735/2015, .
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) w Represented by: Mr. Hirein Sharma, APF.
, ; Representedby: : Mr. G.P.Tharejawith>^^^ Satyam Thareja, Advs. for R-1, '• ' • 3&4. • - •
- Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. , ~ - withMr. Bharat Sharma, Adv.
V/ - ' ;-'''fbrR-2: V - ' CRL.REV.P.358/2bl6 &Grl.M.A. 7931/2016 '
TATWATT :.... Petitioner ;
Represented by: Mr. Shalabh Guptawith Mr. Madhur Arbra, Advs. '
STATE &ORS . . . „r"
Represented by: Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP.
•Mr. G.P. Tharejdwith Mr. Stayam Thareja, Advs. for ,R-2, !^ • , " • -•3&5. ' ^
' ' • CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
14:02.2017 ^ 1., By these ty/o petitions, the State and the complamant challenge the common impugned order dated 6'- June, 2015 whereby though charge for offences punishable under Sections,294/354A/504/509 IPC and Section 12 ofProtection ofChildren from Sexual Offences Act (in short>POCSO Act')
2017:DHC:8303 was directed to be framed against Jaidev however the learned Trial Court discharged the respondents Jagdev, Jagmal and Stirajbhan for the offences chargesheeted.
ORDER
2. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the complainant have taken me through the Trial Courtrecord. TheTrial Courtrecord has a CD ofCCTV footage though only afew photographs ofCCTV footage were filed with the charge sheetwhich shows the presence ofJaidev howeverthe photographs relatingto the same date also showthe presence ofJagmal and Suraj Bhan @ Monu. The CD ofthe CCTV footage was collected during the course ofinvestigation and was sent for FSL opinion which fact is duly noted in the charge sheet. Without having perused the CD of the CCTV footage and the statements ofthe witnesses, the learned Trial Court could not have come to the conclusion that no case for framing of charge was made out against Jagdev, Jagmal and Surajbhan @Monu.
3. Consequently, the impugned order dated 6" June, 2015 to the extent it discharges Surajbhan @Monu, Jagdev and Jagmal is set aside. Learned Trial Court will apply its mind to all the documents filed along with the charge sheet and statement ofthe witnesses, hear the arguments ofboththe parties and then come to the conclusion whether any case is made out for framing ofcharges againstthe respondents Jagdev, Jagmal and Surajbhan @ Monu and for what offences.
4. Petitions and applications are disposed of Trial Court record be sent back forthwith.