Punjab & Haryana HC Modifies Charge Order: Drops Section 325 IPC, Substitutes Section 330, Rejects Bid to Add Section 307

Justice Sumeet Goel modified a Gurugram sessions court charge order in a hospital-assault case, replacing Section 325 with Section 330 IPC and rejecting the complainant’s attempt to add attempt-to-murder charges.

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in a common judgment pronounced on 29 May 2026, disposed of two connected criminal revision petitions arising from the same charge-framing order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram on 20 November 2024. Justice Sumeet Goel, sitting singly, modified that order by substituting Section 330 IPC for Section 325 IPC in the charges against the accused, while simultaneously rejecting the complainant’s prayer to add Section 307 (attempt to murder) and Section 379-B IPC. The judgment turns on the medical record consistently classifying the complainant’s injuries as simple in nature, and on the legal distinction between causing hurt to extort a confession (Section 330) and voluntarily causing grievous hurt (Section 325).

The Gurugram Hospital Assault and the Two Revision Petitions

FIR No. 173 dated 27 August 2023 was registered at Police Station New Colony, Gurugram, under Sections 147, 149, 323, 341, 379-B and 506 IPC at the instance of the complainant, Nishant Verma, against certain persons including the accused Dr. Rohit Lalit and others. The FIR alleged that the complainant was detained and assaulted inside a hospital and subjected to threats. The police investigation, however, found the allegations of snatching of a mobile phone, wallet, cash, dollars, a gold chain and a bracelet to be untrue, and deleted Section 379-B from the case vide a status report dated 29 September 2023.

The Medico Legal Report (MLR) dated 27 August 2023 recorded eleven injuries on the complainant’s body, including multiple contusions on the forehead, swelling around both eyes, nasal bleed, jaw pain, left shoulder pain, and contusions on the back. Subsequent police applications to the General Hospital, Gurugram, sought medical opinions on the nature of those injuries. The government doctors, after reviewing the discharge summary and the MLR, opined that injuries 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10 and 11 were simple in nature. The dental injury (injury No. 7) was separately examined; the Dental Surgeon at Civil Hospital, Sector 10, Gurugram, opined on 22 November 2023 that the dental injury was probably simple in nature, a view corroborated by the private dentist at Dental Makeover. An NCCT face scan dated 28 August 2023 showed the body, ramus, alveolar process and condylar process of the mandible to be normal.

The complainant had also approached a private dentist at Dental Makeover, and on 10 November 2023 a tooth extraction procedure was performed. The police thereafter sought a further opinion from the government hospital, which again assessed the dental injury as simple.

After completing investigation, the police filed a challan on 8 February 2024 before the jurisdictional magistrate under Sections 323, 325, 331, 341, 201, 506 and 34 IPC. The Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, by the impugned order dated 20 November 2024, directed that charges be framed against the accused under those very sections.

Two revision petitions followed. In CRR-2289-2025, the accused sought deletion of Sections 325 and 331 from the charge, along with condonation of a 204-day delay in filing. In CRR-1437-2025, the complainant sought addition of Sections 307, 379-B and 149 IPC and the arraignment of further accused persons not charge-sheeted by the police, along with condonation of a 94-day delay.

Delay Condoned; Legal Framework on Charge-Framing Applied

Justice Goel condoned both delays at the outset. For the accused, the explanation was that their earlier counsel met with a serious accident on 13 March 2025, suffered grave head injuries and required brain surgery, making it impossible for the petitioners to retrieve the case file or proceed for a considerable period. New counsel was engaged in May 2025. The accused had also initially filed a quashing petition, which was withdrawn on 22 May 2025 with liberty to avail alternative remedies. The Court accepted this explanation as sufficient cause.

For the complainant, who appeared in person, the explanation was that collecting the voluminous record and drafting the petition took considerable time after the impugned order. The Court accepted this as well, finding the delay bona fide.

On the legal standard for framing charges, the Court drew on its earlier judgment in Sanjay Kumar Sharma v. State of Haryana, 2024 (3) Law Herald 1971, which had synthesised the prima facie test from a line of Supreme Court decisions. The Court restated that the question at the charge-framing stage is whether a strong suspicion, founded on tangible material capable of being transformed into reliable evidence at trial, is made out against the accused. The Court is not to conduct a mini-trial or minutely examine the probative value of the material, but equally cannot act as a mere post office for the prosecution. Material that is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case need not be accepted.

Why Section 325 Was Replaced by Section 330

The accused argued that Section 325 IPC (voluntarily causing grievous hurt) was not attracted because all medical opinions consistently classified the injuries as simple. They contended that the alleged tooth extraction, even if accepted, did not constitute “grievous hurt” within the meaning of Section 320 IPC on the facts and circumstances of the case.

The Court examined the medical record in detail. Every opinion — from the initial MLR, through the government hospital opinions of September and October 2023, to the dental board opinion of November 2023 — assessed the injuries as simple. The NCCT face scan showed no fracture of the mandible. The dental surgeon noted that the patient had not undergone an X-ray of the jaw joint and that, in the light of the available documents, the injury to the teeth and jaw should be considered simple unless radiological or dental corroboration of the contrary was placed on record. No such corroboration was placed on record.

The Court accepted that the medical evidence did not support a charge of voluntarily causing grievous hurt under Section 325. However, the Court found that the material did support a charge under Section 330 IPC, which penalises voluntarily causing hurt to extort confession or to compel restoration of property. The substitution of Section 330 for Section 325 reflected the Court’s reading of the nature of the alleged assault — occurring inside a hospital, involving detention and threats — rather than a straightforward assault causing grievous hurt.

Section 331 IPC, which deals with voluntarily causing grievous hurt to extort confession, was also removed from the charges, consistent with the finding that the injuries were simple and not grievous.

The accused had also argued that petitioner No. 1, Dr. Rohit Lalit, suffers from 60% permanent physical disability substantially impairing his mobility, making allegations of active physical assault implausible. The Court did not accept this as a ground to discharge him at the charge-framing stage, given the applicable standard of strong suspicion rather than proof.

Section 307 Bid Rejected: Intention to Kill Not Made Out

The complainant, in CRR-1437-2025, pressed for addition of Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder). The Court rejected this emphatically. It reiterated that the essential ingredient of Section 307 is the intention to cause death, which must exist prior to the actual attempt and must be established independently of the act itself. Intention can be inferred from surrounding circumstances — the type of weapon, words spoken, motive, parts of the body targeted, nature and extent of injuries, and the force and manner of blows. On the facts, the medical record showed simple injuries caused by a blunt weapon. There was no material to infer an intention to cause death. The Court held that invocation of Section 307 was “entirely unwarranted and legally unsustainable.”

Section 379-B and the Exonerated Accused

The complainant also challenged the deletion of Section 379-B IPC (robbery) and the exoneration of accused persons not charge-sheeted by the police. On Section 379-B, the Court found that the investigating agency had deleted the offence after recording statements of nine witnesses and examining the material, concluding that the allegations of snatching were untrue. The Court held that charges cannot be framed on bald and omnibus allegations bereft of foundational material, and found no illegality in the trial court’s refusal to frame a charge under Section 379-B.

On the prayer to summon respondents No. 6 to 15 as additional accused and to frame charges under Sections 147 and 149 IPC, the Court held that these submissions were coram non judice at the present stage. The jurisdictional scope of the revision was strictly limited to the legality and correctness of the impugned charge-framing order against the petitioners who had been charge-sheeted. The exoneration of persons not challaned was a collateral matter. To examine the merits of their exoneration would overstep the Court’s remit and risk causing prejudice. The Court accordingly refrained from rendering any opinion on the complicity or lack thereof of those persons.

The complainant had also argued that Complaint No. COMI/32/2024, filed by him against the petitioners and certain doctors of Civil Hospital, Sector 16, Gurugram, alleging conspiracy and fabrication of medical opinion, had been dismissed. The Court did not treat this as a basis for modifying the charges.

Outcome

Both revision petitions were disposed of by a single order. The impugned order dated 20 November 2024 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, was modified. The charges against the petitioners in CRR-2289-2025 (Dr. Rohit Lalit and others) are to stand under Sections 323, 330, 341, 201, 506 and 34 IPC. Sections 325 and 331 IPC are deleted from the charge. Section 307 and Section 379-B are not added. The prayer to summon additional accused persons is not entertained. The Court clarified that nothing in the judgment shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, and directed the trial court to proceed further in accordance with law. Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.