Supreme Court Orders Delhi Police to Charge Attempt to Murder in Advocate Assault Case
In a significant development, the Supreme Court of India has instructed the Delhi Police to apply charges of attempt to murder and voluntarily causing hurt with dangerous weapons against those accused of assaulting Advocate Pankaj Sharma at his residence in Delhi. This directive was issued by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana. The decision was made following the court’s observation that Sharma sustained injuries on a critical area of his body.
“Given the injury on a vital part of the body, it appears that an offense such as attempt to murder should be reflected in the FIR. Therefore, we mandate the inclusion of Sections 109 and 118 [of BNS],” the bench ordered. The Supreme Court further directed that the investigation be transferred to the Crime Branch, citing concerns of bias against the local police.
Details of the Incident
Advocate Pankaj Sharma, who practices before the Supreme Court, was violently attacked on July 11, sustaining head injuries that required eight stitches after allegedly being struck against an iron gate. An initial FIR was lodged at the Model Town police station, listing charges of house trespass and simple hurt. However, Sharma contested that more severe charges were deliberately omitted by the police. He claimed that the main accused, the president of the local residents welfare association (RWA), wielded political influence and that he and his family were coerced into retracting the FIR.
Court’s Response and Further Proceedings
On July 14, the Supreme Court called for a status report from a Deputy Commissioner of Police or higher and ensured Sharma’s protection. During the proceedings, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, representing Sharma, highlighted coercion suggested in the status report. “The status report indicates that a compromise is being enforced,” Singh asserted.
Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa argued that the local police were shielding the accused. “The accused RWA president is being shielded by the local police,” Pahwa claimed. Singh advocated for the investigation’s transfer to the Crime Branch, questioning the absence of Section 109.
Role of the Attorney General
Attorney General R Venkataramani, present in the courtroom, stated his actions were in the best interest of the injured lawyer, advocating for a medico-legal report to ascertain the injuries. However, Singh countered, “As Attorney General, more should have been done.”
Judicial Observations
Justice Bagchi emphasized that the intention behind the assault, rather than the severity of the injury, was crucial. “Intention is paramount in such cases, and not the injury’s magnitude. The injury is on a vital part of the body,” he noted. He remarked that the investigating officer should consider the graver offense before relying on medical opinions.
When an advocate suggested immediate arrests, Justice Bagchi humorously rebuffed the notion, underscoring the seriousness of anticipatory bail applications. The court concluded by ordering the addition of serious charges to the FIR and transferring the investigation to the Crime Branch.
