Vinod Ram vs. The Union Territory Of Andaman Nicobar Island

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 5382 /2024 [@ SLP [CRL.] NO.7246/2024]

VINOD RAM Appellant(s)

VERSUS

THE UNION TERRITORY OF ANDAMAN NICOBAR ISLAND & ANR. Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

Despite the contesting respondent being served, there is no representation on his behalf.

The appellant is the victim. Alleging that the respondent No. 2, who is the proposed accused indiscriminately assaulted him leading to severe injuries suffered by the appellant and which made him undergo medical treatment, a complaint was given on his behalf by his wife. The said complaint was not taken on file, though a cognizable offence was made out on a mere reading.

The appellant, thereafter, filed a complaint invoking Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 after finding that the further complaint given by his wife before the Superintendent of Police also did not yield any result. On both the occasions, the investigation was closed through a closure report by way of a mini trial. The appellant has specifically stated about

the injuries suffered by him, which in fact he did suffer. However, a statement said to have been given by him earlier was taken into consideration, and on that basis the complaint was closed. An attempt was said to have been made through the public officials to persuade the wife of the appellant to withdraw the complaint. An audio recording of the aforesaid attempt was made, which was also handed over to the police has not even been looked into. It is the further case of the appellant that the medical records have been tampered with, and the CCTV footage as well.

Suffice it is to state that the allegations are very serious, and not only has the investigation agency been lax, but also the Courts have conducted a mini trial and dismissed the protest petition filed by the appellant. Though there are sufficient materials provided by the appellant, we do not wish to go into the same at the moment, as considering the same would hamper the trial. It is a fit case where both the trial Court and the High Court should have allowed the protest petition in order to find out the truth during the course of trial.

Accordingly, the impugned proceedings which rejected the Protest Petition filed by the appellant and was confirmed by the High Court on revision are set aside. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Port

2

Blair, is directed to proceed with the matter in view of the protest petition being allowed.

We hope and trust that the concerned Magistrate shall take into consideration the relevant materials including the audio recording and photographs adduced by the appellant.

The appeal stands allowed accordingly.

Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

………………………………………..J. [M.M. SUNDRESH]

………………………………………..J. [ARAVIND KUMAR]

NEW DELHI; DECEMBER 12, 2024.

ITEM NO.16 COURT NO.9 SECTION II-B

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 7246/2024

[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 15-12-2023 in CRR No. 17/2023 passed by the High Court of Calcutta Circuit Bench at Port Blair]

VINOD RAM Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

THE UNION TERRITORY OF ANDAMAN NICOBAR ISLAND & ANR.Respondent(s)

Date : 12-12-2024 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

• For Petitioner(s) Mr. Kushagra Pandey, AOR Ms. Ankita Gupta, Adv.
• For Respondent(s) Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma, Adv. Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR Ms. Mrinal Elkar Mazumdar, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.

The appeal stands allowed in terms of the signed order.

Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(ASHA SUNDRIYAL) (POONAM VAID) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)

[Signed order is placed on the file]