Order 20

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: SC No. 220/2022
STATE Vs. MANOJ
FIR No. 447/2020
PS Vasant Vihar
Under Section 307, 120B IPC &
Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act
10.01.2025
ORDER ON CHARGE
1. This order determines whether charges are to be framed
against the accused persons, namely Manoj S/o Sh. Ram, Vikram
S/o Ishwar Das and Amit @ Mithwa S/o Ram Chander, and if so,
under which offence.
2. Briefly, the present case pertains to a series of events in
which the accused, Manoj and Amit, were alleged to have
conspired and hired a contract killer to eliminate the
complainant, Rahul Chaudhary. The motive behind the
conspiracy is claimed to have stemmed from personal grievances.
3. In April 2019, accused Manoj’s elder daughter, Kirti,
allegedly eloped with the complainant, Rahul Chaudhary, leading
to a tarnished reputation for Manoj and his family in the village.
4. As per the prosecution, to mitigate the damage caused, the
accused Manoj arranged the marriage of his younger daughter in
January 2020. However, this marriage was subsequently called
off when the groom’s family became aware of Kirti’s earlier
elopement. As a result of this, accused Manoj allegedly
developed a deep grudge against complainant Rahul.
FIR No. 447/2020
PS Vasant Vihar
Under Section 307, 120B IPC &
Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act Page 1 of 8
-- 1 of 8 --
5. It is the story of prosecution that, accused Manoj shared
his abovenoted grievances with accused Amit, his neighbour and
friend, and sought assistance in eliminating complainant Rahul. It
is further alleged that accused Amit suggested hiring a contract
killer for this purpose and introduced accused Manoj to accused
Vikram, and alleged contract killer residing in Basant Gaon.
6. As per the prosecution, a deal was finalized for a sum of
Rs.2.5 lakhs, out of which accused Manoj initially paid
Rs.75,000/- to accused persons Amit and Vikram in installment.
Further, it is alleged that accused Manoj and Amit made
additional payment to accused Vikram. It has also alleged that, in
making of this additional payment, accused Manoj approached
Muthoot finance in Munirka and mortgaged the jewellery of his
wife for a sum of Rs.1,20,000/-.
7. During the investigation of the present case, CCTV
footage from the parking gate near the crime scene was recovered
and reviewed. The statements of accused persons, witnesses and
other documentary evidence were collected.
8. Based on the above-stated background, accused Manoj and
Amit were arrested. Accused Manoj was taken on one day police
custody remand for locating co-accused Vikram. On 15.12.2010,
a secret information was received by police station Vasant Vihar
regarding the whereabouts of that one contract killer, Vikram,
who was apprehended from the area of Kusumpur Pahadi, Vasant
FIR No. 447/2020
PS Vasant Vihar
Under Section 307, 120B IPC &
Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act Page 2 of 8
-- 2 of 8 --
Vihar. The personal search of co-accused Vikram led to recovery
of a pistol from his possession. During sustained interrogation,
accused Vikram confessed to his involvement in the present case
and also got recovered the weapon used in attempting to murder
complainant Rahul Chaudhary. Thereafter, accused Vikram was
formally arrested in the present case. The TIP proceedings of
accused Vikram was fixed; however, accused Vikram refused to
participate in the said proceedings.
9. Ld. Counsels for the accused persons namely, Manoj and
Amit filed applications seeking the discharge of the accused
persons from the present case.
10. This court has heard the arguments from both the sides.
11. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for accused Amit @
Mithwa that the allegations levied against the accused are solely
on based on the disclosure statements of the co-accused persons.
It is further submitted by the Ld. Counsel for accused Amit that
the accused has no relationship with the co-accused or with the
victim/ injured in the present matter. It is also pointed out by the
Ld. Counsel that co-accused persons, namely Manoj and Vikram,
were known to each other for a long time, and therefore there
was no requirement for accused Amit to arrange a contract killer
for accused Manoj to eliminate Rahul Chaudhary. It is also
submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused Amit that the accused
is falsely implicated in the present case and, as there is no
evidence against him, he should be discharged.
FIR No. 447/2020
PS Vasant Vihar
Under Section 307, 120B IPC &
Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act Page 3 of 8
-- 3 of 8 --
12. Ld. Counsel for accused Manoj submits that registration of
present FIR is a blatant misuse of power by the police
administration. Ld. Counsel further argues that, as per the version
of the prosecution, the gun-shot was fired by accused Vikram,
and the pistol was also stated to be recovered at the instance of
accused Vikram. Hence, no role is attributed by the State to
accused Manoj. Thus, it is stated that accused Manoj seeks
discharge in the present matter.
13. Ld. Counsel for accused Manoj also submits that the
complainant, Rahul Chaudhary, has not named accused Manoj in
his complaint. Therefore, there is no direct evidence against
accused Manoj. Thus, it is contended by the Ld. Counsel that he
deserves to be discharged from the present FIR.
14. Ld. Counsel for accused Manoj further argues that, as per
the version of prosecution, co-accused Vikram was identified by
a secret informer as being a friend of accused Amit. However, the
record does not disclose the name of the informer. Ld. Counsel
submits that this fact clearly casts doubt on the credibility of the
prosecution case.
15. Ld. Counsel for accused Manoj also contends that the
accused has been falsely implicated in this case, solely on the
basis of call detail records.
FIR No. 447/2020
PS Vasant Vihar
Under Section 307, 120B IPC &
Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act Page 4 of 8
-- 4 of 8 --
16. Lastly, Ld. Counsel for accused Manoj submits that, as
there is no direct evidence linking accused Manoj with the
alleged offence, he should be discharged.
17. Ld. Counsel for accused Manoj rely on the following case
laws:
➢ State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600.
➢ State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Nitin Gunwant, (2016) I SCC (Cr) 361.
➢ Sanjeev Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, Crl. Rev. No.593/2016 decided
on 24.03.2017.
➢ Smt. Kavita Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr., Crl. Rev.
No.574/2016.
➢ Sunil Bansal Vs. The State of Delhi, 2007(7) AD Delhi 780.
➢ Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr., 1979 AIR 366.
➢ Dilawar Babu Curane Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2002 SC 564.
➢ Kuldeep Singh Vs. The State of Punjab, decided on 4th February,
2022.
➢ State of Punjab Vs. Parveen Kumari & Ors., 1991 (3) RCR (Crl.)422
(DB).
➢ Sarju Prasad Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1965 SC 843.
➢ Gunwant Lal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1972) 2 SCC 194.
➢ State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh, AIR 1977 SC 2018.
➢ State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Golconda Linga Swamy & Anr., AIR
2004 SC 3967.
18. The applications for discharge of accused persons Manoj
and Amit, are opposed by the State on the ground that the
statements of all the accused persons, when read together
alongwith the statement of the complainant/ victim, Rahul
Chaudhary, it clearly establishes the motive behind entering into
FIR No. 447/2020
PS Vasant Vihar
Under Section 307, 120B IPC &
Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act Page 5 of 8
-- 5 of 8 --
a conspiracy to kill Rahul Chaudhary. The recovery of weapon of
offence at the instance of co-accused Vikram further strengthens
the case of the prosecution against the accused persons. It is also
submitted by the State that the call detail records of the accused
persons shows that they were in constant contact with each other
at the time of alleged commission of offence and that the accused
persons hatched a conspiracy to eliminate the complainant, Rahul
Chaudhary. Thus, it is prayed that charges against accused
persons be framed in the present case.
19. It is observed by this court that at the stage of framing of
charges, only prima facie case is to be seen. The court has to see
if there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
As also observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of
P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala, (2010) 2 SCC 398, wherein
the Apex Court considered the scope of Section 227 of CrPC,
which reads as under:
“At the stage of Section 227, the Judge has merely to sift the
evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused. The sufficiency of
ground would take within its fold the nature of the evidence
recorded by the police or the documents produced before the
Court which ex facie disclose that there are suspicious
circumstances against the accused so as to frame a charge
against him. If the Judge comes to a conclusion that there is
sufficient ground to proceed, he will frame a charge under
Section 228 Cr.P.C., if not, he will discharge the accused.
While exercising its judicial mind to the facts of the case in
order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out
by the prosecution, it is necessary for the court to enter into the
pros and cons of the matter or into a weighing and balancing of
evidence and probabilities which is really the function of the
court, after the trial starts.”
FIR No. 447/2020
PS Vasant Vihar
Under Section 307, 120B IPC &
Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act Page 6 of 8
-- 6 of 8 --
The above observations were affirmed by the judgment of
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
State of Rajasthan Vs. Ashok
Kumar Kashyap, Crl. Appeal No. 407 of 2021.
20. Further, in the case of State Vs. Bangarappa, (2001) I SCC
369, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that:
“at the time of framing of charge, what is required is that
the trial court on careful consideration of the allegations
contained in the complaint should be satisfied that prima
facie ingredients of the offence alleged in the complaint are
made out at the stage of framing of charges, court should
not undertake detailed analysis and evaluation of material.”
21. In light of the above discussion, the chargesheet has been
perused. The statements and disclosures on record of the accused
persons establishes their involvement in planning and financing
the alleged offence. It is observed that the sequence of events and
their actions align with the prosecution’s claims. The recovery of
CCTV footage and the testimony of witnesses further
corroborates the conspiracy between accused persons, Manoj,
Amit @ Mithwa and Vikram. Further, the efforts of accused
Manoj to arrange the funds, including mortgaging jewellery,
substantiate the claim of premeditation and execution of criminal
act.
22. The personal animosity of accused Manoj towards victim,
Rahul, due to family dishonour provides a clear motive for the
alleged crime.
23. The call detail records of all the accused persons shows
that they remained in constant contact with each other
FIR No. 447/2020
PS Vasant Vihar
Under Section 307, 120B IPC &
Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act Page 7 of 8
-- 7 of 8 --
immediately before the date of the incident, on the date of the
incident, and thereafter.
24. The argument of the Ld. Counsels for the accused persons,
Manoj and Amit, that there is no direct evidence on record to
connect the accused persons with the alleged commission of
crime, is found to be baseless by this court. As pointed out
earlier, there is a chain of evidence apart from the disclosure
statements of the accused persons, which links all three accused
with each other in alleged commission of crime against the
complainant, Rahul Chaudhary.
25. Hence, the material on record does not warrant the
discharge of the accused persons, namely Manoj and Amit.
However, their role, intent and their involvement will be
determined during the trial.
26. Thus, a prima facie offence punishable under Section 307
IPC read with Section 120-B IPC and under Section 27 of Arms
Act is made out against accused Vikram, and offence punishable
under Section 120B IPC read with Section 307 IPC is made out
against accused Manoj, Vikram and Amit @ Mithwa.
Accordingly, formal charges are framed against all three accused
persons, to which they plead not guilty and claim trial.
(Aparna Swami)
ASJ-07/PHC/New Delhi
10.01.2025
FIR No. 447/2020
PS Vasant Vihar
Under Section 307, 120B IPC &
Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act Page 8 of 8
-- 8 of 8 --