CRL.REV.P./825/2024 of STATE NCT OF DELHI Vs LUCKY KAPOOR & ANR.

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+CRL.REV.P. 825/2024

STATE NCT OF DELHI.....Petitioner

Through:Mr. Manoj Pant, APP for the State.SI Pradeep Kadiyan, P.S. RajouriGarden.

versus

LUCKY KAPOOR & ANR.

.....Respondent

Through:

None.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANIO R R%04.07.2024

CRL.M.A. 19109/2024 (exemption)

Exemption granted, subject to just exceptions.

Let requisite compliances be made within 01 week.

The application stands disposed of.

CRL.M.A. 19108/2024 (condonation of delay)

By way of the present application filed under section 482 of theCodeofCriminalProcedure1973(‘Cr.P.C.’),therevisionpetitioner/State seeks condonation of 210 days’ delay in filing therevision petition.

2.For the reasons stated in the application, which is duly supported byan affidavit, the application is allowed.

3.Delay in filing the revision petition is condoned.

CRL.REV.P. 825/2024

4.The revision petition is taken on Board.

5.The application stands disposed-of.

CRL.REV.P. 825/2024

6.By way of the present petition filed under sections 397 and 401 readwith section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the revision petitioner/State impugnsorder dated 26.07.2023 made by the learned ASJ-04 (West), TisHazari Courts, Delhi in case SC No.191/2021 (‘impugned order’),arising from case FIR No. 1341/2015 dated 11.09.2015 under section365 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’) registered at P.S.: RajouriGarden, New Delhi.

7.By way of the impugned order, the learned ASJ has been pleased todischarge the respondents, namely Lucky Kapoor and Tarun Bhallafrom the case, while framing charges against the other 04 accusedpersons under section 364-A/34 IPC.

8.The reasoning, based on which the learned ASJ has discharged therespondents, is narrated in the following extracts of the impugnedorder :

“I have gone through the contents of FIR which wasrecorded on the basis of statement made by complainant RahulSingh as well as the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. as well as statementu/s 164 Cr.P.C. of victim Abhishek. The perusal of the saidstatement reveals that the victim Abhishek had assigned specificroles to accused persons namely Alok Kumar, Vishal, Manoj andShadab. The statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of victim also reveals thatinitially, the aforesaid accused persons demanded sum ofRs.10,000/-, then Rs. 20,000/-, then Rs. 40,000/- and thereafter, asum of Rs. 2 Lakhs as ransom.

CRL.REV.P. 825/2024

Perusal of the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of victim Abhishekreveals that in respect of accused Lucky Kapoor and Tarun, he hasonly alleged that while he was kept in the said premises, accusedTarun and Lucky had come upstairs and in their presence, theother accused persons have stated to them that Abhishek hadcommitted fraud with them and that is why, they have abductedAbhishek.Except this, no other role has been attributed to accusedTarun and Lucky. Thestatement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. of victimAbhishek reveals that he has not attributed any role to accusedTarun and Luckyin the commission of offence. Rather in statementu/s 164 Cr.P.C., victim Abhishek had specifically stated“Wahanpar do ladke Lucky aur Tarun the, jo bekasoor hain,unhone mujekuch nahi kaha, baki logo ke khilaaf sakht karyavayi ki jaaye”.

The combined effect of both the statements of victim Abhishekreveals that there is no incriminating material on record to connectaccused Lucky Kapoor and Tarun Bhalla for commission of offenceas mentioned in the charge-sheet, Accordingly, they are dischargedin the present case. They are directed to furnish bail bonds u/s 437ACr.P.C. in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety of the like amountwithin 03 working days from today.”

(emphasis supplied)

Learned APP submits, that the learned ASJ has erred in dischargingthe respondents, proceeding only on the statement made by the victimAbhishek and taking that statement as the correct interpretation of therespondents’ role in the offence which the State alleges they havecommitted under section 364-A and section 34 IPC.

Learned APP argues that the victim’s interpretation of the role of therespondentsintheoffencecannotbetakenasthejudicialinterpretation of such role; and whether or not, the respondents areguilty of commission of any offence, can only be decided after

CRL.REV.P. 825/2024

conclusion of the trial based on the evidence that comes to beadduced.

In particular, learned APP submits, that keeping “ ..... person indetention after such kidnapping or abduction .....” is in itself part ofthe offence of kidnapping for ransom under section 364-A IPC; andthat reading of the impugned order shows that the victim hasconfirmed the presence of the respondents at the premises where hewas kept in detention after being abducted.

Learned APP further argues that the presence of the respondents at thepremises also brings them within the ambit of section 34 IPC, namelythat the respondents also entertained the common intention to committhe offence under section 364-A IPC alongwith the other 04 co-accused persons.

Having heard learned APP appearing for the State and also havingperused the impugned order, it is observed that the only basis onwhich the prosecution seeks to put the respondents through trial is thestatement of the victim which has been para-phrased by the learnedASJ in the impugned order, as follows :“… …while he was keptinthe said premises, accusedTarun and Lucky had come upstairsandin their presence, theother accused persons have stated to themthatAbhishek had committed fraud with them and that is why, they haveabducted Abhishek. Except this,no other role has been attributed toaccused Tarun and Lucky. The statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. of victimAbhishek reveals that he has not attributed any role to accused Tarunand Lucky in the commission of offence.Rather in statement u/s 164Cr.P.C., victim Abhishek had specifically stated“Wahan par do

CRL.REV.P. 825/2024

ladke Lucky aur Tarun the, jo bekasoor hain, unhone muje kuch

nahi kaha, baki logo ke khilaaf sakht karyavayi ki jaaye”.”

As per the evidence on record, the position therefore is, that therespondents had come upstairs to the premises where the victim wasdetained after he was abducted and the other co-accused personsinformed the respondents why they had abducted the victim.Evidently therefore, as per the section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of thevictim, the respondents were not the persons who had abducted him;the respondent came to the premises subsequent to the abduction anddetention of the victim there; and, the other co-accused personsinformed the respondents the reason why they had abducted thevictim at the premises.

Furthermore, even in his statement recorded under section 164Cr.P.C., the victim has not attributed any role to the respondents inthe commission of the offence and has in fact expressly exoneratedthem by saying that the respondents were blameless.

Also, the learned ASJ has recorded that there is no (other)incriminating material on record to connect the respondents tocommission of the offence stated in the charge-sheet.

Upon conspectus of the facts and circumstances of the case, thiscourt is unable to discern anything amiss in the impugned orderinsofar as its correctness, legality or propriety is concerned.

In the opinion of this court therefore, even if the respondents were putthrough trial, there is no ‘evidence’ on record that the prosecutioncould possibly ‘prove’ against the respondents, to bring home guilt.

CRL.REV.P. 825/2024

19.In the circumstances, and within the scope and ambit of its revisionalpower under section 397 of Cr.P.C., this court is not persuaded tointerfere with the impugned order.power under section 397 of Cr.P.C., this court is not persuaded tointerfere with the impugned order.

20.The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.

21.Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed-of.

JULY 4, 2024V.Rawat

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J

CRL.REV.P. 825/2024