Pankaj Verma v. State of Delhi & Anr

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.

JANUARY 4, 2018 / gr//

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Order reserved on: 21st November, 2017 Order pronounced on: 4th January, 2018 + PANKAJ VERMA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Pradeep Narula, Ms. Urmila Verma and Ms. Bhawna Khanna, Advocates. versus STATE OF DELHI & AN .....Respondents Through: Ms. Anita Abraham, APP for the State with SI Pramod Kumar from PS-Narela for R-1. Mr. Anirudh Joshi, Adv. for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL 1. The present Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') assailing the order dated 07.08.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-2 (North), Rohini Courts, Delhi in case FIR No. 729/13, whereby charge under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to 'IPC') was ordered to be framed against the present petitioner and other co-accused persons. 2. Factual matrix emerging from the record is that, on 19.10.2013 at about 12:50 a.m. a PCR Call was received from Beggar Home. On enquiry it was found that a scuffle had taken place between one Amit Rana/injured victim and one Babu/main accused wherein the latter inflicted injuries on the former with a knife. The injured was taken to SRHC Hospital from where SI P.L. Meena collected the MLC bearing No.3202/13 of victim Amit Rana wherein the doctor had opined that injury had been caused by sharp object and the injured was unfit for statement. Accused Babu was also under the influence of liquor and hence did not make any statement. No eye witness was found. On the basis of surrounding circumstances the subject FIR was registered under Section 307 IPC. The weapon of alleged offence i.e. the knife was recovered and sent to FSL Rohini for examination. 3. On 27.08.2014, Amit Rana regained consciousness and his statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein he stated that when the quarrel was going on between him and Babu, three persons namely Pankaj Verma, caretaker Rakesh and Harish intervened and caught hold of him and in the meanwhile Babu brought a knife from the kitchen and hit his neck while Harish hit him with a mushli. 4. Vide impugned order dated 07.08.2015, the Additional Sessions Judge (hereinafter referred as 'ASJ'), directed to charge the petitioner under Section 307/34 IPC. On 28.08.2017 the Trial Court framed charges against the petitioner alongwith other co-accused persons under Section 307/34 IPC and fixed the matter for prosecution evidence. Hence the present petition. 5. Assailing the impugned order, Mr. Pradeep Narula, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Trial Court erred in framing the charges against the petitioner merely on the statement of the victim Amit Rana without examining the documents and statements as filed in the charge sheet; that the petitioner who was initially a prosecution witness has been made an accused without taking into consideration the very fact that he has himself supported the case of the prosecution and all other witnesses have deposed on similar lines; that the entire evidence as collected by the prosecution in the charge-sheet as well as the supplementary charge-sheet nowhere points towards the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence; that a perusal of the Examination-in-Chief of the petitioner clearly shows that it was he who had called the PCR and informed about the quarrel that had taken place between Amit Rana and Babu; that hence in the aforementioned circumstances the impugned order be set aside and the petitioner be discharged. 6. Per Contra, Ms. Anita Abraham, learned APP for the State opposed the Revision Petition filed on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that impugned order on charge does not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity so as to warrant any interference by this Court; that the victim Amit Rana in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has specifically mentioned the rol