MUNIM CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 3.8.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in FIR No.234/2011, registered at Police Station Kalyan Puri, directing the framing of charge against the petitioner under Sections 307/324/323/34 IPC.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that on 16.7.2011, an FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint of one Yogesh Kumar @ Boby that at about 8:30 p.m. in front of P.S. Tent House, 4/256, Trilokpuri, Delhi, all the accused persons, namely, Amit, Rishi Raj, Munim Chaudhary and Rahul Tej Rana in furtherance of their common intention attacked the complainant Yogesh Kumar @ Boby, Ram Kishor and Chander Shekhar, as a consequence of which they suffered injuries. It is alleged that Amit had fired on the chest of Yogesh Kumar @ Boby from a country made pistol (katta); accused Rishi Raj is alleged to have caused injuries on the left arm of Ram Kishore with a sharp edged weapon and accused Munim Chaudhary is alleged to have caused injuries to one Chander Shekhar with a sharp edged weapon while as accused Rahul Tej Rana is alleged to have caused injuries by giving kicks and fist blows. All the injured persons were medically examined and their MLCs were prepared. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed. The name of accused Munim Chaudhary was shown in Column No.12 and he was not sent for trial by the Police. He had taken the plea before the Investigating Officer that on the date of incident at about 8:38 p.m., he was present at Shani Dev Mandir, Sector 14, Noida, U.P. Apart from CCTV footage which he handed over to the Investigating Officer showing his presence at the Shani Dev Mandir around the time when the incident had taken place, he had also handed over his mobile phone details around the time of incident and contended that the location of his mobile phone showed that he was not near the place of incident.

(3.) THE petitioner, feeling aggrieved, has preferred the present revision petition and the learned counsel has contended that while framing the charge, the learned trial court has ignored the CCTV footage as well as the call details which clearly belied the accusations made by the complainant that he was attacked by the petitioner, Munim Chaudhary with a sharp edged weapon. It was contended by the learned counsel that the trial court has not considered this unimpeachable evidence which has not been disputed by the prosecution and this was the very reason for which he was not sent for trial by the investigating agency.