The court held that a prima facie case for culpable homicide exists if the accused demonstrates knowledge that their actions could likely cause death, regardless of the actual injury's severity.

JUDGMENT :

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.

1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner is seeking setting aside of the order dated 27.09.2024 [hereafter "impugned order‟], passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-08, Tis Hazari Court (West), Delhi [hereafter "Sessions Court‟] vide which charges were framed for offence under Sections 308/353/332 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereafter "IPC‟] against the petitioner herein.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that on 21.06.2017, an FIR bearing no. 217/2017 came to be registered at Police Station Moti Nagar, Delhi, alleging that a car bearing no. DLICS1129, driven by the accused had been found overspeeding near Zakhira Pul, Rohtak Road at 8:20 AM, and had caused injuries to Constable Parikshit (victim), who was then on traffic duty along with ASI Bhagat Ram and Constable Ram Kishan, intercepting the overspeeding vehicles. The case of the prosecution is that the victim had received a message through wireless from an interceptor operator that the car driven by the accused was over-speeding, pursuant to which, the victim had signalled to him to stop the car, however, the accused, despite initially slowing the car down, did not comply. Instead, allegedly, the accused had told the victim, “hat ja nahi to uda dunga”. However, before the victim could process what had happened, the accused had hit him and fled towards Punjabi Bagh. It is alleged that the victim‟s colleague had also tried to stop the accused, but to no avail. Thereafter, as stated, a PCR van was called upon which took the victim to the hospital, accompanied by Constable Ram Kishan. The statement of the victim was subsequently recorded and the FIR was registered.

3. During the course of investigation, a notice under Section 113 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereafter "MV Act‟), was served upon the registered owner of the car, Sonam Katyal, who pleaded unawareness of the said incident, stating that she had handed over the keys of the car to the driver of the petitioner/accused at his instructions. Pursuant thereto, during investigation, on 15.07.2017, the victim had identified the petitioner/accused as the driver of the offending vehicle when he had come to P.S. Moti Nagar to make enquiries whereafter the chargesheet and a supplementary chargesheet were filed along with a complaint under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. of Sh. Jaswant Singh, ACP, Central District, Traffic Delhi, dated 06.01.2024.

4. By way of impugned order dated 27.09.2024, the learned Sessions Court was pleased to frame charges against the petitioner for offence under Sections 308/353/332 of the IPC. The relevant observations in the order are as under:

“15. From the facts of the case, this court is of the opinion that the accused had no intention to cause the death of the victim as the death been caused of the victim, the same would not have fallen under any of the clauses u/s 300 IPC. There is no evidence to show that by the act of the accused, the death of the victim was most likely to occur. However, at this stage, there is sufficient material on record that accused had the knowledge that death could have been likely' by his act, which was covered under clause (b) of Section 299 and punishable u/s 304 IPC. Thus, accused is liable to be charged for the offence u/s 308 IPC.

16. The complaint u/s 195 Cr.P.C. was signed by the ACP on 06.01.2024. The offence took place on 21.06.2017. The Ld. MM had taken the cognizance of the offence on 10.02.2020. The Ld. MM did not specify that the cognizance of Section 186 IPC was not taken as there was no complaint u/s 195 Cr.P.C., hence, the accuse