Courts Cannot Be Silent Spectators Or Loudspeaker To Echo Whatever Has Been Presented Before It In Chargesheet: Delhi HC
|The Delhi High Court observed that Courts cannot be the silent spectators or a loudspeaker to echo whatever has been presented before it in the Chargesheet.
The Court set aside the charges of attempt to murder under Section 307 of the IPC against two brothers. The Court stated that there was no explanation by the complainant for “such belated naming” of the two petitioners except that they had been falsely named with a malafide intention subsequently.
A Single Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed, “In such cases, where the false implication is is writ large, no fruitful purpose would be served in making the petitioners go through the entire trial which in fact, would be a travesty of justice. The Courts cannot be the silent spectators or a loudspeaker to echo whatever has been presented before it in the Chargesheet.”
Advocate Gaurav Sahrawat appeared for the petitioners, while APP Richa Dhawan represented the respondent.
The petitioners filed a Revision Petition under Sections 397 and 401 read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
The prosecution alleged that two unidentified assailants shot at the complainant and his cousin near a wine shop. The Cousin sustained severe injuries, including bullet wounds to his stomach, thigh, and thumb, and required surgery. Despite an initial investigation that included sketch preparation and analysis of CCTV footage, the police were unable to identify the attackers, leading to an Untraced Report being filed in 2018.
However, in 2019, the complainant filed a fresh complaint naming the petitioners as the assailants. He claimed that he had refrained from disclosing their identities earlier due to fear for his life, as the accused were known to him and had multiple cases registered against them.
This delay in identification was the main point of the petitioners' challenge. The petitioners argued that they had been falsely implicated due to ongoing disputes with a common associate in their property dealings.
The High Court explained that at the time of framing of charges, the entire evidence as collected by the Investigating Agency has to be considered to have a prima facie view and if there is sufficient material disclosed in the Chargesheet for the charges to be framed and the trial to proceed. “At this stage, no minute analysis of the evidence collected has to be undertaken to consider whether the accused persons would finally be acquitted or convicted,” the Court stated.
“A lame explanation has been tendered that they feared for their life. However, the same fear would have continued to linger in 2019 when the subsequent complaint was made. No complaint whatsoever, had ever been made by them to the police about their apprehension of threat or fear. From the petitioners,” the Court remarked.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition.
Cause Title: Ankush & Anr. v. State (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:6190)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates Gaurav Sahrawat, Deepak Malik and Neha Dubey
Respondent: APP Richa Dhawan