IMPORTANT POINT
The Court emphasized the limited jurisdiction of the Court at the present stage and the need for evidence to be presented during the trial for determining the intention or knowledge of the accused.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)

CRL.M.A. 5799/2024 (Exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

CRL.REV.P. 257/2024 & CRL.M.A. 5798/2024

2. This petition has been filed under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, `Cr.P.C.') challenging the Order dated 12.12.2023 (hereinafter referred to as `Impugned Order') passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-06 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as `Trial Court') in SC 455/2023, titled State v. Naresh Kumar @ Sunny, arising out of the FIR No. 303/2023 registered at Police Station: Tigri under Sections 308/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, `IPC'). Later, the charge-sheet was filed inter alia against the petitioners under Sections 307/34 of the IPC.

3. Issue notice.

4. Notice is accepted by Ms.Priyanka Dalal, learned APP for the State.

5. By the Impugned Order, the learned Trial Court has found prima facie case for offence under Sections 307/34 of the IPC to be made out inter alia against the petitioners and consequently, has directed framing of the charge accordingly.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the MLC dated 05.08.2023 carried out at the Jai Prakash Narayan Apex Trauma Center (AIIMS) records the history of the assault given by the injured as an assault by 6-7 persons by hitting with a blunt object at 10.00 PM. The injured did not state that the injury was inflicted on his stomach with any intention or knowledge to cause death. In fact, the MLC shows that the only injury suffered by the injured was laceration over face below left eye orbit and over left temporal region. These were `simple' in nature.

7. He submits that later, the IO instigated the injured to make a complaint so that more serious charge can be made against the petitioners. On such instigation, the injured then reported that he had undergone an operation for Appendix and is having pain in his stomach. It is only based on the said instigation, that further procedure was carried out on the injured, however, even in the report dated 12.08.2023, the doctors found no internal bleeding and the injured was managed only with antibiotics and analgesics.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution still not satisfied, took another opinion from the Super-Speciality Division of Forensic Pathology And Molecular DNA Laboratory, JPN Apex Trauma Centre, AIIMS, New Delhi, which again opined only as under:

"OPINION: (As per Findings mentioned in the Documents submitted)-

Considering all the findings as mentioned in MLC Report, Xray report and Discharge summary, I am of the opinion that injuries sustained by Mr Manish, are grievous in Nature, caused by blunt external force/surface impact and could have been possible in alleged circumstances i.e. Assault. And injuries sustained in incident caused the operation at that time."

9. He submits that even this opinion does not suggest that the petitioners could have had knowledge or intention to cause death of the injured. He submits that, therefore, charge under Section 307 of the IPC cannot be framed.

10. He further submits that the learned Trial Court has wrongly opined that, in the present case, Sub clause (8) of Section 320 of the IPC can be invoked. He submits that the injured did not suffer any bodily pain for a period of 20 days nor was he unable to follow his ordinary pursuits for the said period. The injuries suffered by him also did not endanger his life.

11. On the other hand, the learned APP, who appears on advance notice, submits that the petitioners are the neighbours of the injured. They were fully aware of the injured having undergone a procedure for Appendix. They intentionally tried to cause injury on parts that were relevant with respect to the said procedure, that is, his stomach. There was also an injury caused on the head of the injured with a stone slab. She submits that for invoking Section 307 of the IPC, it is not necessary that the injured must suffer a griev