Vijay Kumar Luthra vs State And Ors.
2005 Latest Caselaw 1027 Del

JUDGMENT

R.S. Sodhi, J.

1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 24.04.2002 whereby the learned Judge in his order on charge has discharged Sushil Tiwari and Zia Lal as also Sunita and Beena.

2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that in the supplementary statements of the injured recorded by the Investigating Agency which was changed to Crime Branch at the request of the complainant, the name of Sushil Tiwari and Zia Lal find mention as one of the persons responsible in the causing of the injuries. He submits that finding arrived at by the Additional Sessions Judge that no supplementary statement of a witness can be recorded, is incorrect. He further submits that there is no material on record at the moment to show involvement of Sunita or Beena, since they have not yet been identified by any other witnesses.

3. Counsel appearing for Sushil Tewari and Zia Lal submits that the supplementary statement is an afterthought. The complainant could have named them in the first instance, but have not done so, the supplementary statement cannot be read at this juncture to frame a charge.

4. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the order under challenge. I find that the learned Additional Sessions Judge in a curt manner discarded the supplementary statements as being afterthought. The supplementary statements of witnesses can be recorded by the police in continuation to their investigation. The veracity or value can only be ascertained at the trial and not at a stage prior thereto.

5. In the present case, statements having come on record cannot be discarded as an afterthought without having tested them in trial. In that view of the matter, I set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 24.04.2002 to the extent of his discharging Sushil Tiwari and Zia Lal and direct the Additional Sessions Judge to reconsider the material available on record and frame charges in accordance with law.

6. As regards the case of Sunita and Beena, the observations of the learned Additional Sessions Judge need no interference with, since there is nothing on record that identifies them as being the two girls who are mentioned in the complainant's First Information Report.

7. With this Criminal Revision Petition 361/2002 is disposed of.