In a criminal revision petition challenging a discharge order, the Court held that refusal to participate in Test Identification Parade, unaccompanied by other incriminating material in the police report, is insufficient to establish a prima facie case.
The revision petition is dismissed maintaining the discharge order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~67
STATE NCT OF DELHI ..... Petitioner Through: Ms.Rajni Gupta, APP for the State
versus
RATTAN CHOPRA ..... Respondent Through: None.
PRATIBHA RANI, J. (Oral)
Crl.M.A.16561/2010
CRL.REV.P. 680/2010
Crl.Rev.P.No.680/2010
Page 1 of 7
State.
“FIR No.162/09 PS Aman Vihar 6.4.2010 Present : Sh.Ram Pyara, Addl. PP for the State. Accused Manoj Bakarwala is produced from J/C. Accused Rattan Chopra is present on bail. Retired IO/SI Jai Prakash is present.
Crl.Rev.P.No.680/2010
Page 2 of 7
At the very outset the accused Manoj Bakarwala has prayed for appointing a counsel for him on state expenses as he is unable to pay fee of the counsel, who was appearing for him in this case. Accordingly, Sh.Sachin Dev Sharma, who is representing accused Rattan Chopra as Amicus Curiae is also appointed as A/Curiae for accused Manoj Bakarwala to defend him in this case on state expenses.
Heard on the point of charge.
It has been submitted by the Amicus Curiae for both the accused persons that although he is considering for framing of charge against accused Manoj Bakarwala but, he is strongly opposing framing the charge against accused Rattan Chopra as there is no material at all to connect accused Rattan Chopra with the alleged offence and there is no overt act imputed to accused Rattan Chopra in the statement of various witnesses recorded by IO.
Ld.APP has submitted that in the FIR No. it is clearly mentioned that accused Manoj Bakarwala and his associate i.e. accused Rattan Chopra, whose name was revealed later on, had fired towards the police party with the weapons which they were carrying at that time and the rukka was prepared by the IO and for the reason best known to the IO/SI Jai Prakash Dahiya why he had given clear chit to accused Rattan Chopra while recording statement of the witnesses in this case and as per FIR the charge is made out against both the accused persons for the sections mentioned in the charge sheet.
I have given thoughtful consideration to the entire evidence arrayed by the prosecution to prove the guilt of both the accused persons and from perusal of the statement of witnesses recorded by the IO in this case. I find that there is no adequate evidence against accused Rattan Chopra to frame a charge against him under any of the offences alleged in the charge sheet. He is accordingly discharged in this case.
Ld.Amicus Curiae for accused Manoj Bakarwala has consented for framing of charge against accused Manoj Bakarwala. On being satisfied that prima-facie case exists against accused Manoj Bakarwala, the charges are directed to
Crl.Rev.P.No.680/2010
Page 3 of 7
be framed against him for the offence U/S 186/353/307 IPC.
The charge has accordingly framed against accused Manoj Bakarwala to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Case is now adjourned for Prosecution Evidence to 12th May, 2010.
Crl.Rev.P.No.680/2010
Page 4 of 7
associate started firing towards the police party. The police party also fired towards them in their defence and also tried to puncture the tyre of the Endeavour car. However, Manoj Bakarwala managed to reverse his vehicle and tried to overrun HC Kuldeep. The moment the police party tried to save themselves and moved backward, Manoj diverted his vehicle on kaccha rasta and while firing towards the police party, managed to escape towards Karala Village. Because of their alertness, none of the member of the raiding team suffered injuries. Inspector Jarnail Singh further stated that he could identify both the persons who were sitting in Endeavour Car if produced before him.
Page 5 of 7
Crl.Rev.P.No.680/2010
this offence. Rattan Chopra was formally arrested after obtaining permission from the Court of PS Vasant Kunj and sent to J/C. Thereafter request for conducting TIP of Rattan Chopra was made but he refused to take part in TIP proceedings. Thus, it is prosecution’s own case that except disclosure statement of Rattan Chopra there was no other material against him. He was arrested by police officials of PS Vasant Kunj under Section 41.1 CrPC on 27.07.2009 and formally arrested in this case on 28.07.2009. there is not even a whisper in the report under Section 173 CrPC that after his arrest and till the time of production before the learned MM for TIP proceedings, he was kept in muffled face. The reason given by Rattan Chopra for his refusal to take part in TIP proceedings must have been recorded by learned MM.
"At the stage of framing charge, the court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. If the court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for proceedings further then a charge has to be framed. Per contra, if the evidence which the prosecution proposes to produce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged by cross-examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the particular offence, then the charge can be quashed.
In the normal course the documents in question in the present case could not have been prepared in anticipation that the respondent would have to face such charges on a future date. The documents being the orders of assessment or returns filed with the Income Tax Authorities on their face value supported the case of the respondent. There was no bar to consider the material on record in the case on hand, which was collected
Crl.Rev.P.No.680/2010
Page 6 of 7
during the course of investigation and produced before the Court."
"It seems well settled that at the Ss. 227-228 stage i.e., stage of framing the charge, the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging there from taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The Court may for this limited purpose sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case."
PRATIBHA RANI, J.
JANUARY 20, 2016 ‘st’
Crl.Rev.P.No.680/2010
Page 7 of 7
3 issues framed by the court
Whether mere refusal by an accused to participate in Test Identification Parade proceedings is sufficient to form an opinion about the existence of a prima facie case against him.
Whether the Trial Court committed any error in discharging the respondent when the police report contained absolutely no material connecting him to the offence other than his arrest and refusal for TI
Whether this Court can interfere with the order of discharge passed by the Trial Court under its revisional jurisdiction.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of M.P. v. Mohanlal SoniReferred¶47
State of M.P. v. Mohanlal Soni (2000) 6 SCC 338 · Who else cites this
Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja and OthersReferred¶53
Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi, v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja and Others AIR 1990 SC 1962 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 1 enactments
State NCT of Delhi
Rattan Chopra
Pratibha Rani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
