Delhi High Court
Hasim Khan @ Asim Ali Khan vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 23 July, 2018
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 23.07.2018
+ CRL.REV.P. 185/2017
HASIM KHAN @ ASIM ALI KHAN ..... Petitioner
versus
STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Lokesh Kumar Mishra with
Mr. Himanshu Sharma,
Advocates.
For the Respondent: Ms. Neelam Sharma, APP for the
State.
ASI Yashpal Singh, PS New Ashok
Nagar.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
23.07.2018
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
CRL.REV.P. 185/2017 & Crl.M.A.4259/2017 (stay)
1. The petitioner impugns order-on-charge dated 15.12.2016 in
FIR No.426/2005, Police Station New Ashok Nagar, whereby, the
Trial Court has held that sufficient material is available on record
which raises grave suspicion against the petitioner that he has
committed an offence under Sections 328/376(2)G/34 IPC and held
that a case for framing of charge under the said sections is made out
against the petitioner.
2. The FIR was registered in the year 2005. Though in the FIR the
prosecutrix names the petitioner, however, in a statement under
Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix states that she knows
the petitioner, however, the petitioner was not the one who committed
the subject offence and has categorically denied the involvement of
the petitioner in the subject offence and has stated that two unknown
persons had committed an offence on her.
3. Charge sheet, which was filed in the year 2014, notices the fact
that the complainant in her statement had categorically stated that she
knew the petitioner but denied the involvement of the petitioner in the
subject offence and stated that two unknown persons had committed
the offence on her and was filed without arrest. Even the FSL report
has stated that group test for the human semen detected on exhibits -
1.2 & 6(B) has been found to be inconclusive.
4. The trial court has by the impugned order framed charges
against the petitioner.
5. The trial court has clearly erred in not noticing that there is
nothing to connect the petitioner with the subject offence. Neither has
the prosecutrix supported the case of the prosecution to implicate the
petitioner nor does the FSL report implicate the petitioner. On the
other hand, the prosecutrix in her statement under Sections 161 and
164 Cr.P.C. has categorically stated that she knows the petitioner but
states that there is no involvement of the petitioner in the subject
offence.
6. Keeping in view of the fact that the prosecutrix has denied the
involvement of the petitioner in the subject offence and the FSL report
is also inconclusive, I am of the view that no case is made out giving
rise to suspicion leave alone grave suspicion against the petitioner of
the subject offence.
7. In view of the above, the impugned order-on-charge dated
15.12.2016 and the order framing charge, against the petitioner, on
02.03.2017 is set aside. The petitioner is discharged.
8. The petition is allowed in the above terms.
9. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
JULY 23, 2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
st
