Order 10

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: SC No. 290/2023
State Vs. S Gopi Nath & Ors.
FIR No. 422/2022
PS GTB Enclave
25.04.2024
Present:- Sh. Sobit, Ld. Additional PP for the State.
Accused S Gopi Nath is produced from JC.
Accused Raees and Shashi Verma are present in
person on bail.
Ms. Komal, Ld. Counsel for accused Raees.
Ld. Counsel for accused Shashi Verma.
Sh. C S Tyagi, Ld. LAC for accused S Gopi Nath.
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. It is submitted by Ld. LAC for accused
S Gopi Nath that he had not caused any injury and as per the
prosecution he had only injured the deceased and she had
succumbed to her injuries after long period and even after the
PMR, it cannot be said conclusively that death of the
complainant was caused as a result of assault and injury being
committed by accused and he had not used knife and it was
planted to make out a strong case, similarly nothing has been
recovered from the accused and all the articles as per the charge
sheet are planted ones. Ld. Counsels for accused Raees and
Shashi Verma argued that police had planted the articles on them
and they had no knowledge that the said articles/jeweleries were
stolen/robbed property.
Page No. 1
-- 1 of 5 --
2. Ld. Addl. PP for State argued that accused S Gopi
Nath had intentionally caused injuries to the
complainant/deceased J. Susheela by knife due to which she
sustained injuries and died and he robbed her jewelery/articles,
which were sold and given to the accused Raees and Shashi
Verma and the said articles were recovered from all accused
persons, which were robbed by accused S Gopi Nath and prima
facie charges u/s 302/394/397/411 IPC are made out against
accused S Gopi Nath and u/s 411 IPC accused Raees and Shashi
Verma.
3. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the
record.
4. As per FIR, on 02.10.2022, DD No. 68A was
recorded to the effect that one known person had entered the
house and he had cut the hand and neck of mother in law and
taken away the articles.
Complainant J Susheela alleged that on 02.10.2022,
she had to go at Sai Mandir, Jhilmil, Delhi, and at about 4.20 PM,
Gopi, S/o Govind Rajan came to her house, who were known to
her as he used to visit her home and resided at D56/57, Dilshad
Colony, Delhi. Accused Gopi had asked for water and he drank
the same and she told him to leave as she had to visit the temple,
then Gopi bolted the door and took out a knife from his pocket
and put it on her neck and inflicted injury and took out the gold
chain and then he hit knife on her right hand and took out the
gold bangle (kada) and also took the earings from her ears and he
had also taken her mobile phone and purse having her ID and
cash.
Page No. 2
-- 2 of 5 --
Complainant/injured was admitted in GTB Hospital
and the case was registered u/s 394/397 IPC and he was seen in
the CCTV footage and identified by the witness. The accused
was arrested and he disclosed that he had sold the robbed articles
and at his disclosure, name of accused Shashi Verma came to
light as the person to whom accused Gopi had sold the gold
chain, which was produced by accused Shashi Verma to the
police and seized and Gopi had also taken the police to accused
Raees to whom, Gopi had come with gold kada and told that he
had robbed the same and he wanted to sale the same. Gopi had
also got recovered from his house Rs. 12,000/- (500x24) cash,
which was the sale proceed from the chain and he had also got
recovered one chain, ear-ring, gold ring, two ear lutkan, one gold
locket and also got recovered steel knife. IO had seized all the
articles and the same were identified by the witness in the TIP.
5. On 13.10.2022, complainant J Susheela got expired
and as per the PMR, cause of death is shock due to infection of
right lung (Pneumonia) and all injuries were ante mortem, caused
by sharp edge cutting weapon. The injured was admitted in GTB
Hospital after the assault by accused Gopi and later she was
shifted to Max Hospital, Patparganj, Delhi where she was
declared dead.
6. 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
Page No. 3
-- 3 of 5 --
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.”
7. 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 No. 4
-- 4 of 5 --
8. 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.
9. Considering the charge-sheet and other materials
on record, prima facie charges u/s 302/394/397/411 IPC are
made out against accused S Gopi Nath and prima facie
charge u/s 411 IPC is made out against accused Raees and
Shashi Verma.
Formal charges are framed accordingly, to which
accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Let PW IC CPCR and HC Ajit Singh (mentioned
in the list of witnesses at Sl. No. 9 and 10 respectively) be
summoned through SHO concerned for the next date i.e.
05.07.2024.
Let PW S K Rajee (mentioned in the list of
witnesses at Sl. No. 1) be summoned through SHO concerned
for the next date i.e. 18.07.2024.
IO and MHC (M) with case property be also
summoned through SHO concerned for the next date.
Put up for PE on 05.07.2024.
(Kumar Rajat)
ASJ-07/SHD/KKD Courts/Delhi
25.04.2024
Page No. 5
-- 5 of 5 --