Delhi High Court – Orders
Pramod Kumar And Ors vs The State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi on 14 July, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.REV.P. 228/2025, CRL.M.A. 17478-17479/2025
PRAMOD KUMAR AND ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Anupriya Yadav and Ms. Shruti
Bageshara, Advocates.
versus
THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for State
with Mr. Anugraha, SI, PS-Welcome.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 14.07.2025
1. The present revision petition under Sections 397/401 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 19731 is directed against order on charge dated 16th
January, 2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-05 (Shahdara)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. The said proceedings emanate from FIR No.
364/2019, registered at P.S. Welcome, for the offences under Sections
308/323/354/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.2 The Petitioners have been
arrayed as the accused in the said FIR.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the Prosecution is as follows:
2.1. Upon receipt of DD No. 15A dated 21st July, 2019, SI Amit
Bhardwaj, accompanied by a police official, reached the location at C-283,
Chhajjupur, Shahdara, Delhi, where he learned that the injured/victim had1
“Cr.P.C.”
2
“IPC”
CRL.REV.P. 228/2025 Page 1 of 7
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/07/2025 at 21:38:10
already been taken to GTB Hospital. At the hospital, three injured persons,
Vijay, R, and S, were found undergoing treatment, with their MLCs
indicating history of physical assault.
2.2. On the same day, the statement of the Complainant, Vijay, was
recorded. He stated that on 21st July, 2019, at around 7:30 AM, his
neighbours, Mahesh, Pramod, Hari, Boby (the Petitioners), along with one
Suraj, and Pramod’s son-in-law, approached him, demanding the removal of
cement he had placed near a drain. When he refused, Pramod (Petitioner No.
1) entered the Complainant’s house, brought out a fawda, and began
removing the cement. When the Complainant protested, Mahesh, Suraj,
Boby, and Pramod’s son-in-law allegedly held him, while Pramod struck
him on the head with the fawda, causing bleeding. He was taken to the
hospital by his brother, Ravikant.
2.3. Later that morning, at around 9:30 AM, Vijay’s wife “A” called to
inform him that after the PCR officials had left, the accused Chanchal,
Boby, Suraj, and Mahesh assaulted her, Vijay’s mother, and his sister-in-law
“P”. His mother sustained injuries to her head and right hand. His wife was
allegedly beaten, and her blouse was torn, and “P” was also assaulted. When
his brother-in-law arrived at the scene, Suraj allegedly struck him on the
head with a brick.
2.4. Based on Vijay’s complaint, the subject FIR was registered. Victims
“A” and “P” were also medically examined. “A” recorded her statement
under Section 164 Cr.P.C., naming additional accused, Priyanka and Shilpi.
She also alleged that Mahesh was armed with a knife, and reiterated earlier
claims of assault and outraging of modesty of both herself and “P”.
CRL.REV.P. 228/2025 Page 2 of 7
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/07/2025 at 21:38:10
2.5. During the investigation, Petitioner No. 1 was arrested, and the
weapon of offence, fawda, was recovered from the first floor of his house.
Statements of victims and witnesses were recorded. Relevant case exhibits
were sent to FSL, and the expert report was included in the chargesheet.
Upon completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was filed under
Sections 308/323/354/354-B/34 IPC against the accused.
2.6. Thereafter, the Trial Court, vide order on charge dated 16th January,
2025, observed that the accused persons had acted in furtherance of their
common intention, and that there were sufficient grounds to make out a case
for framing of charges, inter alia, under Sections 308/34 of the IPC.
3. Aggrieved, the Petitioners have invoked the revisional jurisdiction of
this Court, seeking setting aside of the impugned order on charge. The
principal contention advanced on behalf of the Petitioners is that the charge
framed under Section 308 of the IPC is not borne out from the material on
record. Given that the nature of injuries allegedly caused by the Petitioners
were simple in nature, it is contended that, the charge, at best, ought to have
been under Section 323 IPC.
4. Elaborating on this submission, Ms. Anupriya Yadav, counsel for the
Petitioner, contends that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that the
allegations levelled against the Petitioners are unsubstantiated and appear to
have been made with the intent to harass them. It is submitted that the
offence under Section 308 IPC (attempt to commit culpable homicide)
necessitates the presence of a specific intention to cause death or knowledge
that the act is likely to cause death. In the absence of any such intention or
knowledge, the charge under Section 308 IPC cannot be sustained. It is
further submitted that the acts attributed to the Petitioners, as reflected in the
CRL.REV.P. 228/2025 Page 3 of 7
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/07/2025 at 21:38:10
chargesheet, do not indicate any deliberate intent to cause death. The
incident in question arose out of a trivial altercation between neighbours,
with no prior enmity or premeditation being attributed to the Petitioners. In
such circumstances, she argues that the essential ingredients of Section 308
IPC are not satisfied, and consequently, the charge ought to have been
diluted to Section 323 IPC.
5. The Court has considered the aforenoted facts and contentions. It is
well-established that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is not
required to conduct a meticulous evaluation of the evidence. Rather, the
scope of judicial scrutiny at this stage is limited to forming a prima facie
view based on the material placed on record. In State of Tamil Nadu v. R.
Soundirarasu and Others,3 the Supreme Court held that at the stage of
framing of charge, even strong suspicion founded on material which leads
the court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual
ingredients constituting the offences alleged, would justify the framing of
charge against the accused in respect of that offence. It is only in a case
where the Magistrate considers the charge to be groundless that he is to
discharge the accused after recording his reasons for doing so.
6. Applying the above legal principles, the Trial Court rightly proceeded
to make a prima facie assessment of the material placed on record, without
delving into a detailed examination of its veracity. In doing so, the Court
made the following pertinent observations:
“7. It is a settled legal proposition that at the stage of charge, detailed
or roving inquiry into the allegations of prosecution cannot be made on
standard of deciding the guilt or innocence of accused persons. The Court,
at this stage, is required merely to form an opinion or record its satisfaction
if there is ground for presuming that accused have committed the offence. It
3
(2023) 6 SCC 768.
CRL.REV.P. 228/2025 Page 4 of 7
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/07/2025 at 21:38:10
is also a settled proposition that on the basis of allegations of prosecution if
two views are possible, charge must be framed against accused.
In the backdrop of settled legal position on point of charge, it is
observed that statement of PW/complainant Vijay regarding role of accused
Mahesh, Pramod, Hari, Boby, Sachin is clear and categorical when he
stated that all the accused persons caught hold of him and accused Pramod
attacked on the back of his head using a fawda which he was using to
remove cement from the drain. The said allegations wife of have also been
prima facie corroborated by A complainant, when she stated that she
witnessed the incident wherein accused Pramod hit a fawda on the head of
her husband. She, infact, stated that when she and her sister-in-law Parvesh
attempted to intervene, accused Mahesh again hit the same fawda on the
head of her husband.
8. A bare perusal of MLC of complainant/injured Vijay would
provide that he suffered ‘lacerated wound of 2.1x1cms and 3×1 cms over
occipital region.’
In the opinion of this Court, fawda is a dangerous weapon and same
was used twice to attack the head of complainant/injured. This Court is not
in agreement with the submission of Ld. Defence counsel that it was a
sudden fight without an intention or knowledge to commit culpable
homicide not amounting to murder. In the opinion of this Court, accused
may not have an intention of causing death of victim, however, the use of
weapon like fawda by accused Pramod while being assisted by five other
accused is reflective of his knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause
death. This Court is also of the opinion that knowledge of accused can be
deciphered from the fact accused came prepared to quarrel with
complainant on the issue of putting cement on drainage and accused
Pramod deliberately brought a fawda to remove the said cement. In such
circumstances, all these accused persons, who acted in furtherance of their
common intention, cannot be considered to have committed only an offence
of causing hurt punishable u/s 323 IPC. Their act certainly falls within the
category of offence u/s 308/34 IPC. In other words, there are sufficient
grounds to presume the commission of attempt to commit culpable homicide
not amounting to murder u/s 308 IPC by these accused persons making out
a case for framing of charge u/s 308/34 IPC.
9. Similarly, there are clear and categorical allegations against the
accused Chanchal, Priyanka, Shilpi, Boby, Suraj and Mahesh to have
criminally trespass inside the house of complainant at about 09:30 am,
causing injuries to A P and R. Further, statements of PW A R P and R are
concomitant to the effect that all these accused persons particularly accused
Boby, Suraj and Mahesh acted in furtherance of their common intention to
disrobe the victim A and P by tearing their clothes. The argument of Ld.
Defence counsel that such allegations are either false or an exaggeration of
facts cannot be accepted at this stage of proceedings as there is nothing
contrary to the said allegations on record. The aforesaid allegations, in the
opinion of this Court, make out sufficient ground to presume commission of
CRL.REV.P. 228/2025 Page 5 of 7
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/07/2025 at 21:38:10
offence u/s 452/323/354/34 IPC against these six accused persons, and u/s
354-B/34 IPC against accused Boby, Suraj and Mahesh.
10. In her statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C, PW A stated that
accused Mahesh snatched gold chain of victim R showing a knife which he
was carrying. The same allegation is repeated by PW R in her statement u/s
161 Cr.P.C recorded on 05.08.2019. by The statement of PW Parvesh is no
exception making similar allegation against accused Mahesh. In fact, PW S
also stated that he was informed by ladies of the house that accused Mahesh
had snatched away the gold chain of R It is noted that IO has not dealt with
such allegations in the chargesheet filed before the Court. In the opinion of
this Court, such allegations, subject to scrutiny during cross-examination,
create grave suspicion of commission of offence u/s 397 IPC by accused
Mahesh.
11. It is also the case of prosecution that accused Suraj threw a brick
and attacked PW S on his head while he was going towards the house of his
brother-in-law i.e. complainant Vijay, causing injuries on his forehead i.e.
‘lacerated wound 3×1 cms on the parietal region.’ Since the said victim left
the hospital, no final opinion on his MLC could be given. In the facts and
circumstances, offence u/s 323 IPC is made out separately against accused
Suraj for attacking victim S with a brick on his head.
12. Having considered the overall facts and circumstances of this case
and the entire discussion, a case to frame charge against all the accused
persons (as noted in the preceding paragraphs) is made out.
13. Ordered accordingly.
14. Put up for framing of Charge on 28.02.2025.”
7. A perusal of the aforesaid observations reveals that the Trial Court
took into account vital aspects surrounding the alleged incident. The Court
observed that the role of the Petitioners in the alleged offence was clear and
categorical, wherein Petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 restrained the Complainant, while
Petitioner No. 2 inflicted injuries on the back of the Complainant’s head
using a fawda. These allegations, as narrated in the FIR, were further
corroborated by the testimony of the Complainant’s wife, “A”.
8. Furthermore, the Trial Court duly considered the question of dilution
of the charge from Section 308 IPC to Section 323 IPC. In this context, the
Trial Court noted the circumstances leading to the alleged incident,
observing that Petitioner No. 1 had brought the fawda onto the premises
CRL.REV.P. 228/2025 Page 6 of 7
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/07/2025 at 21:38:10
under the pretext of removing cement from a drainage, which precipitated
the quarrel with the Complainant. The Court further took into account the
nature of the weapon involved, a fawda, which was used twice to strike the
Complainant on the head, with the active assistance of the co-accused. The
injuries sustained by the Complainant were also duly considered. In light of
these factors, the Trial Court opined that although the accused may not have
harboured a specific intention to cause death; however, the use of a weapon
like fawda by Petitioner No. 1, in concert with five other individuals,
reflected knowledge that the act was likely to cause death.
9. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the view that, at the
stage of framing of charge, there existed sufficient material to raise a
presumption regarding the commission of an offence under Section 308 of
IPC, i.e., attempt to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
This Court finds no perversity or illegality in the reasoning adopted by the
Trial Court which would justify interference in the exercise of revisional
jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court is not inclined to allow the Petitioners’
request.
10. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are limited to the
adjudication of the present petition and shall not influence the Trial Court at
the stage of final determination of the case.
11. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed along with pending
application(s).
SANJEEV NARULA, J
JULY 14, 2025/nk
CRL.REV.P. 228/2025 Page 7 of 7
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/07/2025 at 21:38:10