Interim Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: SC No. 16/2024
State Vs. Lookman & Ors
FIR No. 348/2022
PS Harsh Vihar
15.05.2024
Present:- Sh. Sobit, Ld. Additional PP for the State.
Accused Lookman Ali, Akbar Ahmad and
Munisha are present on bail.
Sh. D.K. Tyagi, Ld. Counsel for all the accused
persons.
ORDER ON CHARGE
1. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons
that they have been falsely implicated and they have no role in
the commission of crime and they had not caused injuries to the
injured Wasim Khan, Mustkim, Imran Khan and Mehboob nor
wrongfully restrained them nor threatened them.
2. Ld. Addl. PP for State argued that accused persons
have wrongfully restrained and caused injuries to the injured
Wasim Khan, Mustkim, Imran Khan and Mehboob by beating
them with stick (lathi) and danda and threatened them, which
makes them liable for charges u/s 308/323/341/506/34 IPC.
3. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the
record.
4. As per the case of prosecution, DD no. 73A dated
27.06.2022 was received regarding the injuries sustained by
several persons. Injured Wasim Khan alleged that on 27.06.2022
at about 6.45 PM, he along with his mother Gulbahar was
returning to his home on his Royal Enfield Motorcycle bearing
no. DL 5S BP 2829 and when he reached the gali near the
Page No. 1
-- 1 of 4 --
Masjid, accused Lookman Ali wrongfully restrained them and hit
him with danda on his head and also caused injury to his mother
and he repeated the said act and in the meanwhile sons of
Lookman Ali CCLs ‘AK’ and ‘SA’ and they were also carrying
lathi-danda and they took attacked them with the same and when
his relatives Saleem and Mustkim came, then they attacked them
also with the said lathi danda. The wife of Lookman Ali namely
Munisha and daughter ‘S’ also came up with danda and attacked
them with the same and due the same, the injuries were sustained
by Wasim Khan, Mustkim, Imran Khan and Mehboob on their
head, which is vital part of the body and from the aforesaid act of
the accused Lookman Ali, Akbar Ahmad and Munisha and CCLs
could have resulted into the culpable homicide not amounting to
murder and all the accused persons acted in furtherance of their
common intention. The injury caused to injured is simple in
nature and on the vital part i.e. head/occipital region/parietal
region and injury to the Saleem was on the nasal bridge and
upper lip. The complainant has specifically alleged that they were
wrongfully restrained by all the accused persons and they were
threatened by them, which shows that offence of criminal
intimidation is also attracted against the accused.
5. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs.
Prafulla Kumar Samal, 1979 (3) SCC 4 laid down the principle
of law applicable at the stage of framing of charge. It was held
that:
(1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing
the charges under Section 227 of the Code has the undoubted
power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of
Page No. 2
-- 2 of 4 --
finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the
accused has been made out.
(2)Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave
suspicion against the accused which has not been properly
explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge
and proceedings with the trial.
(3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally
depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay
down a rule of universal application. By and large however if
two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that
the evidence adduced before him while giving rise to some
suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will
be fully within his right to discharge the accused.
(4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the
Code of Judge which (sic) under the present Code is a senior
and experienced Judge cannot act merely as a Post Office or a
mouth-piece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad
probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the
documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities
appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean
that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and
cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was
conducting a trial.”
6. In Dinesh Tiwari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Another (2014) 13 SCC 137, Hon’ble the Supreme Court held
that for framing charge u/s 228 Cr.PC, the judge is not required to record
detailed reasons as to why such charge is framed. On perusal of record and
hearing of parties, if the judge is of the opinion that there is sufficient
ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence triable by
the Court of Session.
7. In Kanti Bhadra Shah & another Vs. State of West
Bengal (2000) 1 SCC 722, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that
Page No. 3
-- 3 of 4 --
while exercising power u/s 228 Cr.PC, the judge is not required to record
his reasons for framing the charges against the accused.
8. Considering the charge-sheet and other materials on
record, prima-facie charges u/s 308/323/341/506/34 IPC are
made out against the accused Lookman Ali, Akbar Ahmad
and Munisha.
Formal charges are framed accordingly, to which
accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Let PW Waseem Khan and HC Kamlawati
(mentioned in the list of witnesses at Sl. No. 1 and 16
respectively) be summoned through SHO concerned for the
next date.
IO and MHC (M) with case property be also
summoned for the next date.
Put up for PE on 08.08.2024.
(Kumar Rajat)
ASJ-07/SHD/KKD Courts/Delhi
15.05.2024
Page No. 4
-- 4 of 4 --