State vs Bhuwan Mohan
2019 Latest Caselaw 598 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                           Date of Order: January 30, 2019
+     CRL.REV.P. 497/2018

      STATE                                              ..... Petitioner

                         Through:     Ms.Neelam Sharma, Additional
                                      Public Prosecutor for State with
                                      Inspector Rajesh Johri, PS
                                      DIU/SHD.
                         versus

      BHUWAN MOHAN                                      ..... Respondent
                 Through:             Mr.R.P. Luthra and Mr.Sourabh,
                                      Advocates
CORAM:
    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
              ORDER

% 30.01.2019 Impugned order of 18th November, 2017 directs framing of charge for offences under Section 304/34 of IPC. The impugned order is challenged by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on the ground that the offence committed by the respondent-accused is under Section 302 IPC and not Section 304 IPC.

As per the MLC, the deceased had sustained lacerated wound on the left side of forehead measuring 2 inches X 2 inches and there was left periorbital hemorrhage and odema present and clots in both nostrils. It is contended that as per the post mortem report, the cause of death was compression of brain due to the injury on the forehead of the deceased- Sanjay caused by the rod and due to the injury sustained, injured- Sanjay had died.

It was put to the petitioner's counsel as to after how much time, the injured- Sanjay had died and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State informed that injured-Sanjay had died after 20 days of the incident.

Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned order, I find that trial Court has rightly framed charge under Section 304 of IPC and not under Section 302 of IPC against the petitioner. No ground for framing of charge under Sections 302 IPC is made out. This petition is accordingly dismissed while not commenting upon the merits of the case.

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE JANUARY 30, 2019 neelam