KAPIL KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision under Sections 397/4401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by revisionist Kapil Kumar against the order dated 8.6.1995 of the Additional Sessions Judge, whereby a direction was made for framing of charges against him and also against order dated 25.7.1995 passed by Shri J.P.Singh, Additional Sessions Judge by which a charge has been framed against the revisionist for allegedly having committed an offence under Section 395/120-B of the Indian Penal Code. CrI.R. 155/95 & Crl. M.No. 3069/95

(2.) The facts of the case as they appear to be are that on 18.51991, some unknown persons intruded into the house of complainant Anjna Gupta at B-1/146, PaschimVihar, Delhi and ransacked the house. They are said to have looted cash and jewellery. After the FIR was lodged, one Mohsin Akhtar was arrested by the police on 16.5.1992 in an Arms case and on interrogation, the police received a disclosure statement from him about the robbery committed in the house of said Smt. Anjana Gupta. It is said that he disclosed that one Vimal Kumar had given him the information about the riches of the family of Smt Anjana Gupta and also that during the day time only the ladies of the house remain in the house. Said Mohsin Akhtar also informed the Police about the names of his accomplishes in the said dacoity as Saleem, Mohammed Aslam, Hanif, Tasleem, Aslam, Mohd, Gulfam. On this information, they were also arrested. Thereafter said Vimal Kumar was also arrested by the Police on 20th May, 1992. He was interrogated and he informed the Police that Kapil Kumar (the revisionist here) had given him the information that the aforesaid house of Smt.Anjana Gupta belongs to the owner of Laxmi Trading Company, who were sufficiently rich and that only ladies used to be present in the house during the day time. Crl.R. 155/95 & Crl.M.No.3069/95 Vimal Kumar is also said to have admitted that he had conveyed that information to accused persons Saleem and Mohsain Akhtar and had also shown them the house in question.

(3.) Since as per the evidence with the investigation, there was no direct evidence against the revisionist Kapil Kumar, he was chargesheet for allegedly having committed offence punishable under Section 395/120-B of the Indian Penal Code.