LAWS(DLH)-2013-5-333

CHANDER MOHAN DUTTA Vs. STATE

Decided On May 27, 2013
Chander Mohan Dutta Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-accused is facing trial in Sessions Case No.141/1/10 arising out of FIR No. 852/2000 registered on 30th August, 2000 at Rajouri Garden Police Station, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 120-B IPC, 193/195/196 r/w Section 120-B IPC, 389 r/w 120-B IPC and 218 r/w Section 120-B IPC alongwith two others. Charges for these offences were framed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 18th August, 2007. Thereafter the prosecution evidence started and when seven prosecution witnesses had been examined the petitioneraccused raised an objection before the trial Court that PWs 1, 2, 6 and 7 were accomplice witnesses and so their evidence should not have been recorded since they had not been tendered pardon as prescribed under Section 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 ('Cr.P.C.') by the Magistrate either during the investigation stage or even after filing of the charge-sheet and so a prayer was made to the Court for complying with the provisions of Section 306 or 307 Cr. P.C. if at all their evidence was to be used against the accused. The learned trial Court, however, rejected that objection of the petitioner-accused vide order dated 21st January, 2010 on the ground that since none of the accused facing trial had sought pardon nor had the prosecution sought pardon for any of the accused Sections 306/307 Cr.P.C. were not attracted. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of the trial Court the petitioner-accused filed the present revision petition.

(2.) The relevant facts, which only need to be noticed for the disposal of this petition are that on 29th August, 2000 a criminal case of gang rape of PW-1 was registered vide 'Zero FIR' at Subzi Mandi police station since she was found in semi-conscious state in that area near St. Stephen Hospital. One Sushil Gulati was arrested for the commission of the said offence same night. Sometime thereafter the regular FIR no.852/2000 was registered at Rajouri Garden under Sections 376/328/506/34 IPC since the offences appeared to have been committed within the jurisdiction of Rajouri Garden police station. However, on 3rd September, 2000 investigation of the case came to be transferred to the Crime Branch of Delhi Police. During the investigation conducted by the Crime Branch it was found out that the said Sushil Gulati was, in fact, falsely implicated by PW-1 in conspiracy with the present petitioner-accused who during those days was an Inspector in the Delhi Police and was involved in a case under Section 354 IPC in which the said Sushil Gulati was a witness against him and so the petitioner-accused wanted to take revenge by implicating Sushil Gulati in a false case of heinous offence of gang rape. On 9th April, 2001 Sushil Gulati was got discharged by the police from the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate and the present petitioner and three others, out of whom one is an advocate by profession, were arrested and charge-sheeted for the offences noted already. Sushil Gulati and the girl who had earlier got him implicated in this case for having raped her with two others on the night of 29th August, 2000 were cited as the prosecution witnesses. One of the four charge-sheeted accused expired after the commitment of the case to Sessions Court but before the trial court could examine the case on the point of charge. So, the trial Court ordered framing of charges against the remaining three accused persons and as noticed already when seven witnesses had been examined the petitioner-accused had raised an objection in respect of the admissibility of the evidence of PWs 1,2,6 and 7 which was rejected by the trial Court.

(3.) I have heard the arguments advanced from both the sides and after having gone through the trial court record I am of the view that there is no merit in this petition and no interference is called for in the impugned order of the trial Court.