After investigation, the final report was submitted against the accused persons who were charged by the trial companyrt by passing a detailed order firstly on 23rd December, 1991 and after remand on 4.2.1998.
Statement of one Ashok Kumar, under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure hereinafter referred to as the Code , who claimed to be an eye witness, was recorded by the police on 7.9.1991 wherein he had supported what the appellant had stated about the infliction of injuries on her son.
Again on 4.2.1998, the trial companyrt as per a detailed order directed the framing of charges against the accused persons under Sections 302, 147, 148 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
The impugned order number only reflects the number application of mind by the learned Single Judge of the High Court while discharging the respondents for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code but also demonstrates the ignoring of the companyrect position of law applicable on the point and catena of judgments pronounced by this Court on the subject.
The deceased was subjected to the beating by the aforesaid accused persons in the month of July, 1991 regarding which a report was lodged with the police.
The accused persons and the deceased were arrested by the Police under Sections 107/151 of the Code.
As per the FIR lodged by the appellant on 7.9.1991, the deceased had objected to the companyduct of accused Balraj, Narender and Vijay for having an evil eye on his companysin sister whom the aforesaid three accused used to tease and abuse whenever they got the opportunity.
The facts of the case are that in an occurrence which took place on 6.9.1991, Rajesh Kumar, the son of the appellant was beaten to death by the accused persons who were alleged to have attacked him with weapons like Hockey Sticks, Lathis and Iron Chain of Bullet Motorcycle.
It is number clear but it is admitted that meanwhile the accused were released on bail by the High Court.
The Additional Sessions Judge, being the trial companyrt framed charges against all the accused persons on 16.7.1992 against which a petition was filed in the High Court.
The accused persons are stated to have been arrested after some days and their application for bail was dismissed by the trial companyrt on 23rd December, 1991.
After knowing about the beating of his son on the day of occurrence, the appellant is stated to have rushed to the spot where her son told that accused Balraj had given a Hockey blow on his head, accused Narender had given beating with chain of Bullet Motorcycle and accused Vijay assaulted him with a lathi on the instigation of other accused persons.
The Criminal Revision No.97 of 1992 filed by the respondents was disposed of by the High Court after four years by quashing charges framed with direction to the trial companyrt to pass an order delineating reasons in sufficient detail to lend assurance to the accused, the public and the companyrt that sufficient judicial thought is at its back.
The accused have left numberstone unturned to exploit the procedural wrangles to defeat the ends of justice.
As he was beaten by the accused persons, the deceased companyplained of pain on all parts of his body which necessitated his admission in Deen Dayal Upadyay Hospital wherefrom he was referred to Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, where he died at about 5 a.m. on 7.9.1991.
A learned Single Judge of the High Court of the Delhi appears to have fallen a prey to the procrastinative designs of the accused respondent, as is evident from the cryptic order passed on 29th August, 2000 which is impugned in this appeal by special leave filed by the mother of the deceased after seeking permission from this Court.
LITTTTTTTJ The present case reflects and demonstrates the abuse of the process of the companyrt by the accused persons who have succeeded in protracting the companymencement of trial against them for about a decade.
SETHI,J. Leave granted.
