The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of grave suspicion for framing charges under IPC 302 and the importance of evaluating evidence at the stage of framing charges.

Ashutosh Kumar, J.

1. Both the petitions have been heard together and a common order is being passed.

2. The petitioners have impugned the order dated 23.12.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in connection with FIR No. 148/2014 (P.S. Anand Vihar) whereby the Court below, on the order on charge, held that a prima facie case is made out under Section 341/302/34 of the IPC against the petitioners as also against the charges which have been framed accordingly.

3. In order to appreciate the contention of the petitioners it is necessary to examine the FIR which has been lodged by one Ayush Dua, a friend of Ayush Kaushal (deceased).

4. In the FIR which was lodged on 7.3.2014, it has been alleged, inter-alia that on 05.03.2014 petitioner Amit Nagar had quarreled with the deceased over parking of car. The deceased had apologized on the next day and the dispute was resolved. On 07.03.2014, at about 10.30 AM, co-accused Kuldeep @ Dedha abused the deceased and threatened of teaching him a lesson. Unmindful of such threatening, the deceased went inside the institute for taking his examination. After the examination was over, at about 12.40 pm, petitioner Amit Nagar along with the petitioners Tanuj Tiwari and Sachin, Kuldeep @ Dedha and two other friends came and stopped the deceased. It is alleged that the two unknown boys caught hold of the hands of the deceased while petitioner Tanuj Tiwari and petitioner Sachin Kumar also caught hold of the deceased. Amit Nagar and Kuldeep @ Dedha started assaulting the deceased by means of fists and kicks on his abdomen, chest and other parts of the body. While the deceased was being assaulted, he kept on pleading with the accused persons that he was suffering from heart ailment and that he should not be assaulted. Many people gathered at the spot. The deceased became unconscious and fell on the ground. Seeing the crowd, all the accused persons including the petitioners left the place of occurrence. The deceased was admitted to Dr. Hedgewar Hospital by the informant and one Hemant.

5. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, initially, FIR was registered under Sections 341/307/34 of the IPC. The deceased died on 08.03.2004 at about 6.28 A.M after suffering successive heart attacks. On the death of Ayush, Section 302 of the IPC was added.

6. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that it is really unfortunate that the deceased died but the death was because of heart disease and not because of any assault having been perpetrated on him by the petitioners.

7. In support of such contention it is submitted that the injured Ayush Dua was admitted to Dr. Hedgewar Arogya Sansthan at about 1.00 PM on 07.03.2014. The MLC of the deceased clearly discloses that he was brought to the hospital by Hemant. The name of the informant namely Ayush Dua does not find mention on the MLC.

8. Attention of this Court has been drawn to the entry in the MLC regarding particulars of injuries. The MLC discloses that the injured suffered sudden syncopal attack and CPR (Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation) was started. It was, therefore, argued that in the MLC there is no reference of the name of Ayush Dua (the informant) and there is also no statement with regard to any assault having been made on the injured by the petitioners.

9. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in Devinder v. State of Haryana, AIR 1997 SC 454, the Supreme Court has stated that in cases of assault, it is expected that the name of the assailant would be disclosed to the doctor while furnishing the cause of injuries. In the absence of such names having been disclosed at the first opportunity, it could legitimately be inferred that at the earliest available opportunity, the name of the wrong doers was not disclosed.

10. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid case at para 7 has held as hereunder:-

“7. Having carefully gone through the entire materials on record, we are unable to sus