Order 21

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: SC No. 45/2024
State Vs. Ramtez And Ors.
FIR No. 230/2023
PS G.T.B. Enclave
23.09.2025
Present:- Sh. Sobit, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Accused Ramtez and Vijay Verma produced from
JC.
Accused Ramashish present in person on bail.
Sh. Gaurav Kumar, Ld. Proxy counsel for accused
Ramashish.
Sh. Randheer Singh, Ld. Counsel for accused
Ramtez and Vijay Verma.
ORDER ON CHARGE
1. It is argued by Ld. counsel for the accused persons
that they have been falsely implicated in the present case and
they had not hatched any criminal conspiracy to commit the
murder of deceased Dinesh Kumar and had not caused any injury
on the person of deceased nor used any weapon. They had not
committed robbery with the deceased by using any dangerous
weapon i.e. pistol and country made katta. They had not fired
gunshots at the deceased resulting into his death and they are not
clearly visible in the CCTV footage. Nothing has been recovered
from the possession of accused persons and recovery of one bag,
is planted on accused Ramtez and the recovery of Rs. 12,600/-
has been planted upon accused Ramashish and it cannot be
established that said amount was robbed one. Accused
Ramashish had not harboured or concealed the co-accused
Ramtez and Vijay Verma nor having any knowledge or reason to
believe that they were offenders, who had caused death of
Page 1 of 7
-- 1 of 7 --
deceased. Accused Vijay Verma and Ramtez had not fired at
deceased with pistol nor any desi katta/pistol and cartridges were
recovered from them.
2. Ld. Addl. PP for State argued that accused persons
had hatched criminal conspiracy to murder deceased Dinesh
Kumar and caused injuries on his chest and abdomen by firing
gunshots, resulting into his death and robbed his bag containing
cash Rs. 6,98,000/-. They had used dangerous weapon i.e. pistol
and country made pistol while committing robbery with the
deceased. One desi katta and one live cartridge was recovered at
the instance of accused Ramtez and he had used country-made
pistol by firing gunshots on deceased while committing robbery
and also got recovered one cloth bag/thela behind a motorcycle,
belonging to the deceased, which was robbed article. One pistol
and two live cartridges were recovered at the instance of accused
Vijay and he also used. They had intentionally killed deceased
Dinesh Kumar by causing injuries on his chest and abdomen by
firing gunshots resulting into his death. Accused Ramashish had
intentionally hidden the co-accused Ramtez and Ashish Verma to
screen themselves from legal punishment and Rs. 12,600/- was
got recovered at his instance.
3. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the
record.
4. As per the case of prosecution, on 12.05.2023, a
PCR call vide DD no. 113A was received at PS GTB Enclave
regarding gunshot injury at Gali No. 6, Friends Colony, Industrial
Area, Shahdara Delhi and it was entrusted to SI Ajay Bhatt, who
reached the spot and found blood, spectacles and bunch of keys
Page 2 of 7
-- 2 of 7 --
lying in the street in front of factory and one live cartridge and
four empty cartridges were found and injured Dinesh was
brought to the hospital where he was declared brought dead and
he was the supervisor in a go-down of scrap at Dilshad Garden,
Delhi and used to work for collection of payment.
5. On 12.05.2023 deceased had collected the total
amount of Rs. 6,98,500/- from the area of Friends Colony,
Industrial Area, Delhi and he was shot by firing with a pistol and
his bag containing Rs. 6,98,500/- was robbed.
6. After analyzing the CCTV footage near the spot and
route of the accused persons, it was found that the accused
persons, who were involved in the crime, stayed at Aarti Logistic,
Ansari Road, Daryaganj, Delhi with co-accused Ramashish, who
was doing the job of driver at the said shop before committing
the crime and after committing the crime, they again reached at
the said shop with co-accused Ramashish. Accused persons left
Delhi and thereafter, accused Ramashish also left Delhi and went
to his home town Gonda, UP. During the investigation, accused
Ramashish was apprehended by the team of Special Staff,
District, Shahdara from his said house and at the instance of
accused Ramashish, accused Ramtez was also apprehended.
7. During the course of investigation, on 25.05.2023,
accused Ramtez and co-accused Ramashish were interrogated
and they disclosed their involvement in the commission of
present case. Both accused were arrested and they disclosed that
accused Ramtez and Vijay Verma met accused Ramashish at
Daryaganj, Delhi and hatched the conspiracy for robbery and
Ramashish had chosen the area Friends Colony, Industrial Area,
Page 3 of 7
-- 3 of 7 --
Shahdara, Delhi for robbery as Ramashish was aware that there
was a huge collection of money in this area. Accused Vijay
Verma had a pistol and another country made pistol and he
handed over the country made pistol to accused Ramtez.
8. As per the plan on 12.05.2023 at about 07:35 pm,
accused Ramtez and Vijay Verma reached at Friends Colony
Industrial Area through battery rickshaw. Accused Vijay Verma
indicated to Ramtez for snatching the bag from deceased Dinesh.
Then accused Ramtez started snatching the bag forcefully from
the deceased, but he was not giving up the bag. The deceased
started fighting accused Ramtez and Vijay Verma. In the
meantime, accused Vijay Verma took out his pistol and shot the
deceased by firing 5 bullets. Thereafter, accused Ramtez and
Vijay Verma ran away from the spot with the bag of deceased
containing the amount of Rs. 6,98,500/- and reached at
Ramashish’s shop, Daryaganj, Delhi and stayed at night with
Ramashish. They counted the robbed amount which was found
around 7 lakh. Accused Vijay Verma gave the amount of Rs.
90,000/- to accused Ramtez and Rs. 20,000/- to Ramashish and
both left Delhi and reached Ghonda, UP with robbed amount.
9. During the course of investigation, at the instance of
accused Ramtez, a robbed bag, his cloths, which he was wearing
at the time of offence, a country made pistol with a live cartridge,
which was carrying by him at the time of crime, a passbook and
cash deposit slip of A/c 94980100049694, Prathana, UP,
Grameen Bank, Branch Sonbarsa, UP were recovered.
10. During the course of investigation, accused Ramtez
disclosed that accused Vijay Verma gave him amount of Rs.
Page 4 of 7
-- 4 of 7 --
90,000/- of the robbed money, out of which he deposited the
amount of Rs. 50,000/- in his bank account and remaining
amount of Rs. 40,000/- was spent by him in his domestic
expenses. The said robbed amount of Rs. 50,000/- which was
deposited by accused Ramtez in his bank was freezed. The
robbed empty bag was recovered at the instance of accused
Ramtez from Aarti Logistic, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, Delhi.
11. As per PMR, the cause of death of deceased Dinesh
is Haemorrhagic shock as a result of antemortem injury to the
chest, abdomen and Pelvis and their corresponding blood vessels
produced by projectile of Firearm through injury no. 1, 2 and 3,
which are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of
nature, both individually and collectively. All injuries are
antemortem in nature. Injury no. 1 to 4 are produced by projectile
of firearms. Injury 5 is to be produced by blunt force impact.
12. The charges pressed against accused persons in
charge-sheet are u/s 302/394/397/411/120-B IPC & 25/27 Arms
Act. As per charge-sheet, accused Ramashish had provided the
shelter to accused persons after and before the incident and he
received part of the robbed amount, and Rs. 12,600/- was
recovered at his instance. Accused Ramashish was not present at
the spot at the time of incident nor he fired or used the dangerous
weapon or robbed the deceased nor he killed him and there is no
concrete evidence to show that he conspired to get the deceased
kill. As per CDR, the accused persons were in constant touch
with each other during the relevant period.
13.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs.
Prafulla Kumar Samal, 1979 (3) SCC 4 laid down the principle
Page 5 of 7
-- 5 of 7 --
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
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.”
14. 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
Page 6 of 7
-- 6 of 7 --
presuming that the accused has committed the offence triable by the Court
of Session.
15. In
Kanti Bhadra Shah & another Vs. State of West
Bengal (2000) 1 SCC 722, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that
while exercising power u/s 228 Cr.PC, the judge is not required to record his
reasons for framing the charges against the accused.
16. Act of robbery and firing by accused Vijay Verma
and Ramtez at the deceased, was captured in CCTV footage.
17. Considering the charge-sheet and other material on
record, prima-facie charges u/s 302/394/397/120B IPC and u/s
120B IPC and u/s 25/27 Arms Act is made out against the
accused Ramtez and Vijay Verma. Charge u/s 411 IPC is made
out against the accused Ramtez and Ramashish. Charge u/s 212
IPC is also made out against the accused Ramashish.
18. Formal charge framed accordingly, to which accused
persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
19. PWs Akash Aggarwal (at Sl. No. 4 in the LOW) and
MHC(M) with case property be also summoned through SHO
concerned for the next date.
Put up for PE on 11.12.2025.
(Kumar Rajat)
ASJ-07/SHD/KKD Courts/Delhi
23.09.2025
Page 7 of 7
-- 7 of 7 --