Interim Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: -1-
SC No. 411/2024
State Vs. Naeem @ Twenty
FIR No. 440/2024
PS Welcome
18.02.2025
Present:- Sh. Sobit, Ld. Additional PP for the State.
Accused Naeem @ Twenty produced from JC.
Sh. Rajiv Pratap Singh, Ld. Remand Advocate for
accused.
ORDER ON CHARGE
1. It was argued by Ld. counsel for accused Naeem @
Twenty that he has been falsely implicated in the present case
and he has no role in the commission of crime and he had not
caused any injury to victim nor he killed him and he had not used
any weapon/knife and nothing has been recovered from his
possession.
2. Ld. Addl. PP for State has argued that accused
Naeem @ Twenty along with CCL ‘S’ had caused injury to
victim Athar @ Chinu by inflicting knife injuries on his chest and
abdomen deliberately with intention to kill, which caused injury
to him resulting into his death and as such charge u/s 103(1)/3(5)
BNS is made out against him.
3. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the
record.
4. As per the case of prosecution, complainant Sameer
Khan, who is the eye-witness, who alleged that on 05.08.2024 at
about 09:30 pm, he was going from his house towards Jafrabad
on foot for taking cutting jeans and when he reached near
Kardampuri, New Puliya, he saw that Athar @ Chinu, Naeem @
-- 1 of 4 --
-2-
Twenty and Sohail @ Mota @ Adnan, known to him, were sitting
near the wall and drinking. Complainant told Athar to go to his
home as he had drunk a lot, then all the above said persons
started walking towards Shamshan Ghat and complainant
stopped for taking cigarrate and then he also started walking
towards Shamshan Ghat and he saw that accused Naeem @
Twenty was pressing the neck of Athar @ Chinu and CCL ‘S’ hit
him with knife on chest and complainant shouted and told
accused Naeem @ Twenty to release Athar @ Chinu and in the
meanwhile, CCL ‘S’ had hit him with knife on his stomach and
then they fled the spot.
5. Injured was taken to GTB Hospital wherein he was
declared dead. Both accused and CCL ‘S’ acted in furtherance of
their common intention to commit murder of deceased Athar @
Chinu. As per PMR, there are 5 antemortem injuries and cause of
death is antemortem injury on chest and abdomen by sharp
cutting/stabbing weapon and injuries are sufficient to cause death
in ordinary course of nature, both collectively and individually.
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
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
-- 2 of 4 --
-3-
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.
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.
-- 3 of 4 --
-4-
9. Considering the charge-sheet and other materials on
record, prima-facie charges u/s 103(1)/3(5) BNS is made out
against accused Naeem @ Twenty.
10. Formal charge framed accordingly, to which accused
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
11. PWs Sameer Khan and Dr. Tarun Kumar Singh
(mentioned at Sl. No. 1 and 13 in the LOW) be summoned
through SHO concerned for the next date.
In case, Dr. Tarun Kumar Singh is not available,
MS, GTB Hospital is directed to appoint a doctor, who is
acquainted with the handwriting and signature of above said
doctor, who can depose on his behalf. Ahlmad is directed to
annex the copy of MLC along with summons.
IO and MHC (M) with case property be also
summoned for the next date.
Put up for PE/AD on 29.04.2025.
(Kumar Rajat)
ASJ-07/SHD/KKD Courts/Delhi
18.02.2025
-- 4 of 4 --