Delhi HC stays evidence proceedings in attempt to murder case pending in Rohini Court
Nov 20, 2024
New Delhi [India], November 20 : The Delhi High Court has put a stay on the evidence proceedings in an attempt to murder case that is currently pending in the Rohini District Court. The stay was granted following a plea challenging the trial court's order to proceed with the evidence phase of the trial.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, in an order passed last week, noted that there is a distinction between merely referencing material or evidence on record and actually examining it. He observed that the trial court's order dated October 26, 2023, lacked any meaningful discussion or application of mind before framing charges against the petitioners.
As a result, Justice Bhambhani stayed the further proceedings in the case, FIR registered under sections 307/34 of the IPC in Kanjhawala, Rohini, Delhi, in the Sessions Court, with respect to the petitioners--Ran Singh, son of the late Ved Prakash, and Vishal, son of Subash--until the next hearing before the High Court. The case has been re-notified for hearing on February 18, 2025.
Advocates Ravi Drall and Aditi Drall, representing the two accused, argued that the charges were framed in a mechanical manner without proper consideration of key facts. They pointed out that the name of one of the revisionists, Ran Singh, was not mentioned in the FIR, and the other revisionist, Vishal, was not present at the scene of the incident according to the Call Detail Records (CDR). Additionally, both accused were not visible in the CCTV footage.
The revision was admitted after the court allowed the condonation of a one-year delay in filing the revision. It was noted that both the complainant and the revisionists were known to each other.
Adv Ravi Drall, representing the revisionists, submitted that a plain reading of the order dated October 26, 2023, revealed that there was no reference to any material that had come on record during the charge sheet or any reasoning provided by the Sessions Court to justify the framing of charges under sections 323, 325, and 307 of the IPC, read with sections 34 and 37 of the IPC, against all accused.
Considering the contradictions in witness statements and delays in recording witness testimonies, the revision was partly allowed.
