Interim Order 15

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: SC No. 201/2024
State Vs. Baru Laxman Kumar & Anr.
FIR No. 5/2024
PS Anand Vihar Railway Station.
01.12.2025
Present:- Sh. Sobit, Ld. Additional PP for the State.
Accused Baru Laxman Kumar and Dishant @ Lalla
produced from JC.
Sh. Naveen Singla, Ld. Counsel for accused Baru
Laxman Kumar.
Sh. Gaurav Tyagi, Ld. Counsel for accused Dishant @
Lalla (through VC).
ORDER ON CHARGE
1. It is argued by Ld. Counsels for the accused persons
that they have been falsely implicated in the present case and there
was no motive for the accused persons to commit such crime with
the victim/deceased and they had not caused any injuries to
deceased and they had never robbed the deceased nor they used any
weapon and nothing has been recovered from their possession.
There are contradictory version regarding recovery of mobile phone
and ear buds considering the statement of PW Chabbikant Jha, who
stated that deceased was carrying Vivo phone and the recovery is of
Oppo mobile. There is no CCTV covering any offence by the
accused persons and there is no CDR to connect them with crime.
They have been falsely implicated at the instance of the injured.
There is no dacoity committed and thus, there is no question for
invoking u/s 412 IPC.
2. Ld. Addl. PP for State argued that accused person had
robbed the victim of his mobile phone and earbuds and caused
injuries to him and smothered and compressed his neck resulting in
Page 1 of 5
-- 1 of 5 --
his death and greivious injuries to cause and recovery of blue
colour Oppo and earbuds were recovered from accused Dishant @
Lalla and they both acted in furtherance of their common intention.
3. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the
record.
4. As per the case of prosecution, on receiving DD No.
10A dt. 29.01.2024, ASI Shankar reached the spot i.e. Mandawali
Railway Station Stairs where he found SI Pradeep, Crime Team and
Mobile Forensic Team at the spot and he came to know that injured
had been shifted to LBS Hospital by PCR. At the instance of crime
team, ASI Shankar lifted the exhibits as per procedure and handed
over seal to Ct. Sachin. Thereafter, ASI along with Ct. Sachin
reached LBS Hospital and on MLC No. 1027/24 dt. 29.01.2024,
Deepak was found admitted and doctor had declared him brought
dead. ASI Shankar took the photographs of the deceased from his
mobile phone. Thereafter, he met Chabbikant Jha (Father of
deceased) told that when his son left the house, he had his mobile
phone, some cash and some documents along with him.
5. On 30.01.2024, the postmortem of deceased was
conducted by the doctor of LBS Hospital and it was opined verbally
that the cause of death is smothering and asphyxia. Keeping in
view, the circumstances and verbal opinion, a case u/s 302 IPC vide
FIR No. 05/2024 was registered at the PS and investigation of the
present case was handed over to Insp. Proshun.
6. During investigation, IO along with ASI Sanjay
Nagar, HC Mohan, Ct. Manjeet reached at the spot. Thereafter,
SHO along with ASI Shankar were also found present. SI Pradeep
of PS Mandawali was called at the spot. On the pointing out of SI
Pradeep, the site plan was prepared. On the inspection of the scene
Page 2 of 5
-- 2 of 5 --
of crime team, CCTV camera was found installed at the Mosque.
On checking the same, he came to know that on 29.01.2024 at night
time, three young boys were found beating one person. The hard
disk of DVR camera was seized.
7. On basis of CCTV footage, the accused persons were
identified as Baru Laxman Kumar and Dishant @ Lalla and they
disclosed their involvements in the crime and accused Dishant @
Lalla got recovered one mobile phone make OPPO and two
earbuds, which they had robbed from deceased Deepak Jha on 28-
29.01.2024 and killed him. The DVR has been sent to FSL Rohini.
Mobile phones of accused and deceased were seized. IO had seen
the CCTV footage and the FSL result is awaited. In CCTV footage
as IO had seen, accused persons were seen hitting the deceased. As
per PMR, there are 19 antemortem injuries and as per DNA
analysis, the blood was on the shirt of accused Baru Laxman
matched with the DNA profile of the deceased. Accused persons
caused death of deceased by smothering and compression of neck
and also caused injuries on his face, head and other parts of body
and thus attempted to cause grievous hurt and also caused the same,
while committing robbery and robbed him of his mobile phone and
earbuds and they had acted in furtherance of their common
intention. No offence u/s 412 IPC is made out as there is no dacoity
was caused.
All the contentions of Ld. Counsel for accused
persons are matter of trial.
8.
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
Page 3 of 5
-- 3 of 5 --
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.”
9. 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.
Page 4 of 5
-- 4 of 5 --
10. 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.
11. Considering the charge-sheet and other materials on
record, prima-facie charges u/s 302/394/397/34 IPC are made out
against the accused Baru Laxman Kumar and Dishant @ Lalla and
additional charge u/s 411 IPC is made out against accused Dishant
@ Lalla. Accused persons are discharged from section 412 IPC.
12. Formal charge framed accordingly, to which accused
persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PWs Pooja and Chavikant Jha (mentioned at Sl. No. 2
and 4 in the LOW) and MHC(M) with case property be summoned
through SHO concerned for the next date.
Put up for PE on 16.02.2026.
(Kumar Rajat)
ASJ-07/SHD/KKD Courts/Delhi
01.12.2025
Page 5 of 5
-- 5 of 5 --