CRL.REV.P./20/2025 of DINESH SHARMA & ORS. Vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

*INTHEHIGHCOURTOFDELHIATNEWDELHI+CRL.REV.P. 20/2025 & CRL.M.As. 1392-1393/2025DINESH SHARMA & ORS......Petitioners

Through:Mr. Viraj R. Datar, Senior Advocatewith Mr. Sahil A. Garg Narwana, Mr.Dipesh Singhal, Mr. Honey Gola, Mr.KapilGaba,AdvocateswithPetitioner No. 1 (in-Person).with Mr. Sahil A. Garg Narwana, Mr.Dipesh Singhal, Mr. Honey Gola, Mr.KapilGaba,AdvocateswithPetitioner No. 1 (in-Person).

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI.....Respondent

Through:Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP.SI Vinod Kumar, P.S. Mehrauli.SI Vinod Kumar, P.S. Mehrauli.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R R20.01.2025

1.The present revision petition under Section 438 of the BhartiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023[1]read with Section 397 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973[2], challenges the order dated 24[th]October, 2024,passed by the ASJ, (South), Saket Courts, New Delhi, directing framing ofcharges under Sections 451, 323, 342, 308, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860[3]against all the accused persons – i.e., the Petitioners herein. Moreover,as against Petitioner No. 1 - Dinesh Sharma, additional charges have beendirected to be framed under Section 201, 379 and 34 of the IPC, whereasagainst Petitioner No. 2 - Sneha Sharma, additional charges have beendirected to be framed under Sections 379 and 34 of IPC.

1 “BNSS”

2 “Cr.P.C.”

3 “IPC”

2.The case of the prosecution, which forms the basis of the FIR, is asfollows:

2.1.On 8[th]June, 2022, at around 3 P.M., the Complainant - RohanKaushik, who is the husband of Petitioner No. 3 - Swati Sharma, left hishome to meet certain person sent by his Chartered Accountant andcollected cash from the said person. Thereafter, the Complainant met hisfriend, namely – Nargisa, who was living in Chhatarpur Pahari and whom hehas known for 4-5 months.

2.2.At around 7 P.M., when the Complainant was in the drawing room ofNargisa’s house with Nargisa and her flatmate Shirin, the Complainant’swife, i.e., Petitioner No. 3 - Swati Sharma, her sister – Petitioner No. 2 -Sneha Sharma and Swati’s brother-in-law – Petitioner No. 1 - DineshSharma, entered the house forcefully and started beating the Complainant.They confined Nargisa and Shirin (flatmate of Nargisa) in one room anddragged the Complainant to the bedroom where Petitioner No. 2 andPetitioner No. 1 started repeatedly hitting glass bottles on the Complainant’shead, due to which he started bleeding profusely. While hitting theComplainant, Dinesh was shouting that he will kill the Complainant today.2.3.Subsequently, Dinesh took out leather belt and started to repeatedlyhit the Complainant with the belt’s buckle, on his torso, back, neck andhead. The Complainant tried to save himself and escape, but all three of theaforementioned Petitioners caught him and hit his head against the wall ofbedroom as well as the drawing room.

2.4.Even though the Complainant pleaded for mercy, the said Petitionerscontinued to hit him with anything that they could find, including their fists,the belt, glass bottles, glass cups and perfume bottles. At this point,

Petitioner No. 1 - Dinesh told Petitioner No. 2 - Sneha to bring out his knife,with which he attempted to stab the Complainant multiple times, but failedas the Complainant struggled to save himself from the assault.

2.5.The said Petitioners then compelled the Complainant to lie down in aparticular position to depict as though it was the Complainant who wastrying to beat the Petitioners. The Petitioners also made videos of theComplainant laying on the floor in an attempt to stage lie that the he wasthe one beating them up for about an hour and half, whereas it was theComplainant who was beaten and was actively bleeding. Thereafter, theComplainant’s wife – Petitioner No. 3 – Swati falsely informed her parentsas well as the Complainant’s parents that the said Petitioners had caught theComplainant in compromising position with Nargisa.

2.6.When the parents of Petitioner No. 3 and the Complainant reached thespot after about an hour, Petitioners No. 1, 2, and 3 – i.e., Dinesh, Sneha andSwati, instigated them by narrating false stories which made the parentsannoyed at the Complainant. Even in their presence, Petitioner No. 1 -Dinesh hit the Complainant with the leather belt several times and Petitioner

No. 2 - Sneha repeatedly kicked his stomach.

2.7.Further, Petitioners No. 1 and 2 - Dinesh and Sneha snatched awaythe Complainant’s car keys, purse, credit cards, mobile phone as well as hisbag containing Rs. 2 Lakh in cash. Petitioner No. 1 – Dinesh’s clothes werered with the blood of the Complainant, however, after the arrival ofPetitioner No. 3’s parents, they managed to get Dinesh’s clothes changedand took away the blood-soaked clothes.

2.8.The Petitioners did not allow the Complainant’s parents to providehim any medical aid, because of which the Complainant’s father had to call

the police. The police then, bought the Complainant to Fortis Hospital,Vasant Kunj where he was given treatment for his injuries and an MLC wasprepared. Therefore, it is clear that Petitioner No. 1 and 2 - Dinesh andSneha respectively, caused the Complainant several injuries by hitting himwith objects which could have caused his death. Subsequently, theComplainant filed complaint with the SHO, P.S. Mehrauli on 9[th]June,2022, on the basis of which an FIR bearing no. 362/2022 was lodged at P.S.Mehrauli on 14[th]June, 2022, under Sections 308, 451 and 34 of the IPC.2.9.After conclusion of investigation, chargesheet dated 10[th]July, 2023,was filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate[4], Saket Courts, New Delhi,wherein the Petitioners No. 2 and 3 were implicated under Sections 308,451, and 34 of the IPC and Petitioner No. 1 was implicated under Sections308, 451, 506 and 34 of the IPC. Thereafter, on 13[th]September, 2023, theMM took cognizance of the case and chargesheeted the Petitioners underSections 451, 308, 506 and 34 of IPC and on 16[th]November, 2023, thematter was committed to the Sessions Court under Section 209 of Cr.P.C.Subsequently, on 25[th]July, 2024, supplementary chargesheet was alsofiled in the case and on 24[th]October, 2024, the ASJ passed the impugnedorder, framing the charges as follows:

i)Petitioner No. 1 – Dinesh Sharma: u/s 451, 323, 342, 308, 379, 201and 34 of IPC.

ii)Petitioner No. 2 – Sneha Sharma: u/s 451, 323, 342, 308, 379 and 34of IPC.

iii)Petitioner No. 3 - Swati Sharma: u/s 451, 323, 342, 308 and 34 ofIPC.

3.In light of the above, Mr. Viraj R. Datar, Senior Counsel for thePetitioners, argues that the bare perusal of the material on record depicts thatthere was no sufficient or acceptable evidence against the Petitioners forcharging them with the aforenoted charges. He further submits that the TrialCourt has failed to take into account all the facts and circumstances, as wellas the material placed on record, which prima facie do not support theframing of the specific charges as noted above. Mr. Datar emphasizes thatfor attracting the provisions of Section 308 of IPC against the Petitioners,the ingredients of Section 308 – i.e., acting with the requisite knowledge andintent to cause death must be present, however, there is no such evidencepresented by the prosecution. He urges that it is not even the Complainant’scase that the Petitioners attempted to stab him with broken bottle orinflicted injuries using sharp edges, with the intent to cause his death.Therefore, he argues that in absence of the essential ingredients of Section308, the framing of the charge of Section 308 against the Petitioners iserroneous.

4.Furthermore, Mr. Datar submits that in the FIR as well as theChargesheet, there are no allegations qua Petitioner No. 3 - Swati Sharma ofassault or hitting or any kind of violence perpetuated by her. Therefore, thecharges framed against her under Sections 323 and 308 of IPC are primafacie not attracted. He also argues that the Trial Court has failed toappreciate that prima facie the present case does not attract Section 308 ofIPC against the Petitioners since the conduct of the Petitioners, including thecalling of the parents of both the Complainant and Petitioner No. 3, at thescene of the incident, demonstrates the clear absence of any intent and

knowledge to cause death of grievous harm. Moreover, he urges that as isrecorded in the MLC, the Complainant’s injuries are classified as simple andas such, there is no evidence of intent or knowledge on the part of thePetitioners to cause bodily harm likely to result in death.

5.Lastly, Mr. Datar submits that while the Trial Court has noted thejudgments of this Court in State v. Rahul[5]and Pawan Chaddha v. State[6], inthe impugned order, the said judgements have not beencorrectlyappreciated.

6.The Court has considered the aforenoted contentions but remainsunpersuaded. The Court is mindful of the legal threshold at the stage offraming charges, which is distinct from the standard applied during trial. TheSupreme Court, in Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr.[7]haslaid down that the test to be applied is whether the material on recorddiscloses grave suspicion of the commission of the alleged offense,sufficient to frame charges. At this stage, the Court does not delve into ameticulous analysis of the evidence or assess its credibility but ratherevaluates whether prima facie case exists.

7.In this regard, it is important to take note of the observations made bythe Trial Court in the impugned order, which are as follows:

“9.While applying said principles to the case at hand and relyingupon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Salman & Ors. Vs.State & Anr. Crl. Revision Petition 333/2018, this Court is of the view thatno case for discharge of accused persons is made out and that prosecutionshould be given an opportunity to prove its case. The fact that injuredRohan Kaushik was allegedly hit on vital part of his body i.e., headwith glass bottle and that his head was also hit against the wall wassufficient to attract Section 308 IPC. This Court is unable to see

5 Crl. L.P. 698/ 2019

6 Criminal Appeal 640/2011

7 AIR 1979 SC 366

anything in law to the effect that offence U/s 308 IPC shall be attractedonly in case where the injured would have died if no one had come toprotect him immediately. Judgments relied upon by Ld. Defence Counselare distinguishable on facts. As far as offence U/s 451 IPC is concerned,statements of Rohan Kaushik and Nargisa @ Mabuda Khon on recordwere sufficient to prima facie show the ingredients thereof. Whether theallegations leveled against the accused were true or not can only bedecided during trial after giving opportunity to both the parties to leadevidence as per law. In these circumstances, the request for discharge ofaccused stands declined.

10.As far as submission of Ld. Addl. PP for State to the effect that aprima facie case for commission of offence U/s 307 IPC was made out inthe given facts is concerned, this Court is unable to agree to that.Though, it has been mentioned in the FIR that accused Dinesh Sharmahad tried to stab the injured with knife and he failed in getting thedesired result due to resistance by the injured, there is no recovery ofany such weapon. It is highly improbable that injured could havesuccessfully resisted him having been stabbed with knife by accusedDinesh Sharma if he had actually attempted to do so. Injured havingbeen hit on the head with glass bottle in itself was not sufficient tomake out case for commission of offence U/s 307 IPC especiallyconsidering the MLC of injured which shows nature of injuries assimple with only two injuries on the head one contused lacerated woundand one small abrasion).

11.Considering the record, prima facie case for commission ofoffences U/s 451/323/342/308/34 IPC was made out against all theaccused persons. Additionaly, prima facie case for commission ofoffence U/s 379/34 IPC was made out against accused Dinesh Sharmaand Sneha Sharma. Further, offence U/s 201 IPC was also prima faciemade out against the accused Dinesh Sharma. Charge has been framedaccordingly to which all the accused persons have pleaded not guilty andclaimed trial.

12.Let PW s at serial no. 2, 5 & 8 as mentioned in the list of witnessesbe summoned for next date. Case property if any, be also summoned. Atrequest of Ld, Addl. PP for State, notice be also issued to IO/SI BanwariLal to remain present for assistance”

[Emphasis added]

8.The Petitioners argue that the essential ingredients of Section 308 ofIPC, namely the requisite knowledge or intention to cause death or grievous

harm, are absent in this case. However, the Trial Court’s findings suggestotherwise. The material on record indicates that the Complainant sufferedinjuries to vital parts of his body, including his head, caused by thePetitioners allegedly using glass bottles and repeatedly hitting him againstthe wall. While the Complainant’s injuries have been classified as “simple”in the MLC, the cumulative acts, particularly the alleged use of potentiallylethal objects and threats to life, create prima facie case of grave suspicionunder Section 308 IPC. It is settled law that mens rea or the intent to commita specific offence, such as causing harm likely to result in death, is aninference that must be drawn from the surrounding circumstances. At thestage of framing charges, the prosecution is not required to conclusivelyestablish this intent but only show the existence of material indicating aprima facie case.

9.The Petitioners’ contention that Petitioner No. 3, Swati Sharma, hasno specific allegations of assault against her is noted. However, the FIR andchargesheet allege her active involvement in instigating the assault andconfining the Complainant. The Trial Court, in its detailed order, noted thatthe specific acts attributed to her, when viewed collectively, prima facieestablish her participation in furtherance of common intention underSection 34 of IPC. This aspect warrants examination during trial and doesnot merit discharge at this stage. As regards the charges under Sections 379and 201 of IPC against Petitioners No. 1 and 2, the prosecution has allegedthat cash and personal belongings of the Complainant were taken by thesePetitioners, and blood-stained clothing of Petitioner No. 1 was destroyed toerase evidence. These allegations, coupled with the statements of witnessesand circumstantial evidence, satisfy the requirement of grave suspicion,

warranting framing of charges under these sections.

10.The reliance placed by the Petitioners on judgments such as State v.Rahul and Pawan Chaddha v. State is misplaced. These cases were decidedpost-trial, based on detailed evaluation of the evidence. At the stage offraming charges, the Trial Court is not required to weigh the evidencemeticulously but to assess whether there is sufficient material to proceed totrial. In this regard, the Trial Court’s reliance on Salman v. State, whichemphasizes allowing the prosecution an opportunity to substantiate its caseduring trial, is appropriate in this context.

11.In light of the above, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugnedorder dated 24[th]October, 2024, passed by the ASJ for framing of charges12.Needless to say, that the observations made hereinabove are only forthe purpose of deciding the present revision petition and shall not influencethe final determination, which shall be considered on the basis of theevidence adduced by the parties and the material on record.

13.Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of along with pendingapplications.

JANUARY 20, 2025/as

SANJEEV NARULA, J