Order 12

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: SC No. 248/2024
State Vs. Tillu @ Dhruv & Ors.
FIR No. 161/2024
PS Harsh Vihar
05.04.2025
Present:- Sh. Pradeep Kumar, Ld. Substitute Additional PP for
the State.
Accused Tillu @ Dhruv produced from JC.
Accused Abhishek Chauhan and Lucky present on
bail.
Sh. Rahul Tyagi, Ld. Counsel for accused Tillu @
Dhruv and Lucky.
Sh. Vipin Kumar, Ld. Counsel for complainant
along with complainant.
ORDER ON CHARGE
1. It is argued by Ld. Counsels 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 any injury to
injured Virender Kumar nor they wrongfully restrained him from
proceeding in any direction. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for
accused Lucky that he had not absconded nor concealed himself
deliberately as he was not having any information that any
case/charge-sheet has been filed against him. It is submitted by
Ld. Counsel for accused persons that no injury was on the vital
part of the body and there are contradictions in the statements of
complainant and eye-witnesses regarding nature of weapon used
and the injury opined is simple in nature. Ld. Counsel for
accused Tillu @ Dhruv has filed an application u/s 227 Cr.P.C.
for discharge on the ground that such lacerated wounds are not
possible with alleged weapon and as per Modi’s Jurisprudence
lacerated wounds are caused by blow from blunt object and there
Page 1 of 6
-- 1 of 6 --
was no cut mark on the clothes of injured and the CCTV footage
does not show any involvement of accused and all the ingredients
of Section 307 IPC is missing and only incised wounds are
possible with sharp cutting instrument by knife, razor etc. He
relied upon the judgment of
Rajpal & Anr. Vs. State, 2010 (3)
JCC 1595.
2. Ld. Addl. PP for State assisted by Ld. Counsel for
the complainant argued that accused persons had committed the
crime in furtherance of their common intention and they had
caused injuries to injured Virender Kumar on his face, back and
hand with sharp object and they wrongfully restrained him from
proceeding in any direction. It is further submitted that accused
Lucky had absconded and concealed himself deliberately and
prima facie charges u/s 308/341/34 IPC are made out against the
accused Tillu @ Dhruv, Abhishek Chauhan and Lucky and
additional charge u/s 174A IPC is made out against accused
Lucky.
3. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the
record.
4. As per the case of prosecution, a PCR call vide DD
No. 71A dated 01.03.2024 was received regarding some quarrel.
Complainant Virender alleged that he was working in Flipkart
and on 01.03.2024 he returned home at 6.30 PM from his
workplace. After sometime, accused Tillu @ Dhruv called him
on his mobile and asked him to come for settling the old dispute
as earlier some quarrel had taken place between them on some
issue. To settle the issue, complainant went on foot to Ganga
Sahay Colony at the house of accused Tillu @ Dhruv and at
Page 2 of 6
-- 2 of 6 --
about 7 PM when he reached near Budh Mandir, Ganga Sahay
Colony, accused Tillu @ Dhruv along with his brother and 4-5
persons was standing there and they surrounded him and started
absuing him and when he resisted, the associates of accused Tillu
@ Dhruv caught hold of him and accused Tillu @ Dhruv hit at
his mouth with some pointed knife like weapon and he started
bleeding from his face and then one of them hit on his back with
the said sharp object and when he tried to save himself from said
sharp weapon, he sustained injury on his fingers and started
bleeding. Accused persons left the spot.
5. FIR was registered u/s 307/341/34 IPC. As per the
MLC of complainant Virender, the nature of injury is simple in
nature and there are lacerated wounds at face, back and fingers.
Complainant has not stated that accused persons attacked him
with intention to kill and there are only lacerated wounds. It is
not clear as to what weapon was used and no weapon of offence
has been recovered during the investigation. Eye witness stated
that accused Tillu @ Dhruv hit with sharp iron chapar. Thus,
there are contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. Ld.
Counsel for accused had pointed out that considering the injuries,
they cannot be caused with the same weapon and there was no
cut mark on the clothes of the injured nor his clothes were taken
into possession.
6. From these facts, it cannot be said that accused
persons had intention to commit murder of deceased or that they
had caused injury with intention to kill as no injury was caused
on any vital part of body, which could have led to death of
injured and there are only lacerated wounds and there is no
Page 3 of 6
-- 3 of 6 --
recovery of weapon and there are contradictions regarding the
weapon used, in the statements of eye-witness and the
complainant. Complainant has not stated if accused had told him
that he would be killed on that day. The accused persons had
caused injury on face, which is near the vital part of the body and
other parts of body and they acted in furtherance of their
common intention and caused multiple injury at face, back and
hand of complainant after wrongfully restraining him. The police
had recovered the cloths of injured, which were bloodstained.
7. In
Hari Singh Vs. Sukhbir Singh, 1988
(3) Crimes 541, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that
“u/s
307 IPC what the Court has to see is, whether the act irrespective
of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under
what circumstances mentioned in that section. The intention or
knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary to
constitute murder. Without this ingredient being established,
there can be no offence of ‘attempt to murder’ u/s 307 IPC. The
intention precedes the act attributed to accused. Therefore, the
intention is to be gathered from all circumstances and not merely
from the consequences that ensue. The nature of weapon used,
the manner in which used, motive of crime, severity of blow on
the part of the body where the injuries inflicted are some of the
factors that may be taken into consideration to determine the
intention.
Thus, in this case no intention to cause murder and
an attempt to do so, could be inferred against the accused persons
from the attending facts and circumstances of the case brought on
record.
8. Accused Lucky had deliberately absconded and he
was declared PO by the concerned Court of JMFC on 02.08.2024
Page 4 of 6
-- 4 of 6 --
and as such Section 174A IPC is prima facie made out against
him.
9.
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
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.”
Page 5 of 6
-- 5 of 6 --
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Considering the charge-sheet and other materials on
record, prima facie charges u/s 308/341/34 IPC are made out
against the accused Tillu @ Dhruv, Abhishek Chauhan and
Lucky and additional charge u/s 174A IPC is made out against
accused Lucky.
Formal charges are framed accordingly, to which
accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Let PW Virender and Deepak (mentioned in the list
of witnesses at Sl. No. 1 and 2 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 23.07.2025.
(Kumar Rajat)
ASJ-07/SHD/KKD Courts/Delhi
05.04.2025
Page 6 of 6
-- 6 of 6 --