RAJASH BHALLA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Rajesh Bhalla, is the petitioner. By way of filingthe present revision petition, he has challenged the order of the AddlSessions Judge, Delhi dated 13.5.86 whereby he alongwith six others wascharged to stand trial under Sections 147, 366 read with Section 149 and354 read with Section 149 IPC. They pleaded not guilty to the charge andclaimed trial.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 13.3.82, Miss NirmalSharma, a student of 2nd year in Miranda House College, Delhi, was waitingfor the bus on the Mall Road bus stand for going to her house after attendingclasses. At that point of time, car bearing registration no. DHD 2707 cameand stayed in front of her. There were six occupants of the car, out of whomthree were Sikhs, aged between 21 and 22 years. In the meantime, two Sikhboys came on a motorcycle and stopped it near her. One of the Sikhgentlemen told Nirmal Sharma to seat herself in the car. She refused to doso. Nirmal Sharma stopped a three-wheeler scooter and tried to get into thesame. The boys, however, prevented her from boarding the scooter andthreatened the scooter driver to remove himself from there. The boys thenmade attempt to forcibly seat her in the car to accompany them but shemanaged to free herself and succeeded in boarding a Haryana Roadways busheading towards Mall Road. She got down at the next Mall Road stop.Those boys followed her and again tried to forcibly adult her. At that time,one clean-shaven boy aged about 27/28 years threatened her with dire consequences in case she failed to accompany them. The boy on the motor-cycle,however, gave an assurance that he would drop her wherever she wanted to goand on that assurance, she seated herself on the motorcycle. Nirmal Sharmanoticed that the motor-cycle driver was following the car and their attemptwas to take her to International hostel. Sensing some trouble, she jumpedfrom the running motorcycle and entered bangalow no. 29/31, Mall Road.

(3.) Bindeshwar, gardener was on his job in the bangalow. He came tothe rescue of Nirmal Sharma and saved her from the clutches of the boys.This part of the story of Miss Nirmal Sharma was supported by SanjeevKumar Dhall who happened to be present at the bus stop alongwith MissArchna Malik. On that basis, the case was registered and investigated. TheI.O. immediately swung into action and reached the owner of the car. Onenquiry, he came to know that Pankaj Malhotra was driving the car at therelevant time. He was arrested. From his interrogation, the names of theother co-accused came to light and they were arrested. During the courseof the investigation, all the seven accused were indentified by Miss NirmalSharma, Archna Malik and Bindeshwar on 14.3.82, i.e. very next day of theoccurrence at the Police Station. After completing the investigation, thechallan was filed which resulted in the framing of charge. Out of the 7 accused,only Shri Rajesh Bhalla is aggrieved of the order of charge. The submissionis that the petitioner was neither described nor named in the FIR by thecomplainant Nirmal Sharma. She also did not identify him in any identification parade. According to the Id. counsel, there is no legally admissibleevidence upon which the court below could frame the charge. The identification in the Police station is no identification in the eye of law and on thatscore, the petitioner cannot be implicated . None of the arguments are to theliking of the Id. counsel for the State who mainly relies upon the statementsof the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,implicating each and every accused in this case.