Interim Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: SC No. 433/2024
State Vs. Ayaan & Anr.
FIR No. 355/2024
PS Welcome
19.08.2025
Present:- Sh. Sobit, Ld. Additional PP for the State.
Accused Ayaan and Rahul produced from JC.
Sh. Ravinder Kumar, Ld. Counsel for both accused.
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
there is no motive for the accused persons to commit such crime
with the deceased and they had no intention to kill the deceased
and they had not caused any gunshot injuries to deceased on his
head and chest resulting into his death. Accused Rahul had not
fired any gunshot on deceased with pistol nor any pistol has been
recovered from his possession or from accused Ayaan, so there is
no question of causing disappearance of pistol by accused Rahul
and they had neither conspired nor acted in furtherance of their
common intention.
2. Ld. Addl. PP for State argued that accused persons
had fired gunshots to kill the deceased Suraj and he died from the
gunshot injuries from the firing by accused Rahul, who acted in
furtherance of common intention with co-accused Ayaan and
accused Rahul threw the said pistol used in crime to shield
themselves from the punishment.
3. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the
record.
Page 1 of 5
-- 1 of 5 --
4. As per the case of prosecution, on 29.05.2024, one
DD No. 18A, PCR call was received by the IO and he reached at
the spot i.e. 43/1, Shera ka bagh, Masjid Wali Gali, 33 Ft. Road,
Kabir Nagar, Delhi, where he found blood stains at the entry gate
of the factory and the injured was already taken to GTB Hospital
by PCR and as per the MLC of injured Suraj, there was multiple
gunshots and he was unconscious. The bullet injuries were
caused on his head, right eye, left shoulder and chest. Crime team
was called and exhibits were collected.
5. Eye-witness Mithun alleged that his brother
Chandan was working as labour in the Nickel Polish Factory of
Suraj for the last 4-5 years at the said spot and he was also
working there since last 2.5 years as Foreman and the keys of the
factory used to remain with him, which he used to open at 08:00
am. On 29.05.2024, at 08:10 am, when he reached factory, Suraj
was sitting at gate of factory and he opened the lock and went
inside and he and Suraj were standing outside the factory gate
and Suraj was calling the workers, who were not present, then at
08:20 am, two persons with helmets came on one black-red
Ntorq scooty and which was given by accused Rahul and one
was riding pillion, who was not known and accused Rahul started
talking with Suraj and after 2 min, Accused Rahul along with
associates went away on scooty, but after 1 min, he again came
back with said person, on scooty and started talking with Suraj
and he heard Rahul saying to Suraj to talk inside the office and
no one was present in the office at that time and they went inside
the office and he heard gunshots three times and he rushed
towards the said office and accused Rahul fled the spot and Suraj
Page 2 of 5
-- 2 of 5 --
was unconscious and bleeding. Accused Rahul again fired near
the office to scare the workers and his associate was ready on the
scooty and he sat on the same and fled the spot.
6. During investigation, co-accused was identified on
the basis of CCTV footage and disclosure statements were made
by the accused persons. Accused Ayaan was correctly identified
by complainant Mithun in judicial TIP and accused persons were
captured in CCTV footage and accused Rahul had thrown the
pistol in Gang Naher Muradnagar, UP to screen himself and co-
accused from punishment and firing was done by accused Rahul,
but both acted in furtherance of their common intention and
accused Ayaan facilitated the crime as he was present near the
spot.
7.
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
Page 3 of 5
-- 3 of 5 --
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.”
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. All the contentions of Ld. Counsel for accused
persons are matter of trial.
11. Considering the charge-sheet and other materials on
record, prima-facie charges u/s 302/34 IPC are made out against
the accused Ayaan and Rahul and charges u/s 201 IPC and 27
Arms Act is made out against the accused Rahul.
Page 4 of 5
-- 4 of 5 --
12. Formal charge framed accordingly, to which accused
person pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
13. PW Mithun (at Sl. No. 1 in the LOW) and MHC(M)
with case property be also summoned through SHO concerned
for the next date.
Put up for PE on 10.12.2025.
(Kumar Rajat)
ASJ-07/SHD/KKD Courts/Delhi
19.08.2025
Page 5 of 5
-- 5 of 5 --