SUPREME COURT DIRECTS POLICE TO INVOKE ATTEMPT TO MURDER CHARGES AND TRANSFER ADVOCATE ASSAULT INVESTIGATION TO CRIME BRANCH:

The Supreme Court has directed the Commissioner of Delhi Police to immediately transfer the investigation into the alleged assault of a practising advocate from the local police to the Crime Branch after expressing serious concern over the manner in which the investigation had been conducted. The Court observed that the allegations of bias against the local police, including claims that officers had attempted to pressure the victim into settling the dispute and were shielding the accused, warranted an independent investigation. The Bench also held that the First Information Report (FIR) should be amended to include offences under Sections 109 (attempt to murder) and 118 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). In doing so, the Court clarified that, in cases involving an allegation of attempt to murder, the intention behind the assault assumes greater significance than the extent of the injury actually sustained.

Earlier, on 14 July, the Court had issued notice on the petition and directed that immediate police protection be provided to the victim to safeguard his life and liberty. The matter was heard by a Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohan. After examining the material placed before it, the Bench observed that the injury had been inflicted on a vital part of the victim's body and that, pending the outcome of the investigation, the allegations disclosed the ingredients of an offence of attempt to murder. The Court therefore directed that Sections 109 and 118 of the BNS be incorporated into the FIR. In view of the allegations that local police officials had encouraged the victim to enter into a compromise with the accused, the Bench considered it appropriate to entrust the investigation to the Crime Branch to ensure fairness and impartiality.

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the petitioner, contended that the conduct of the local police demonstrated a lack of impartiality and informed the Court that officials had been pressuring the victim to settle the matter. Appearing for the State, Attorney General R. Venkataramani submitted that he had advised the authorities to have the victim medically examined at a government hospital so that an independent Medico-Legal Report (MLR) could objectively determine the nature and extent of the injuries. He explained that reliance on a private hospital's medical opinion alone might not adequately establish the seriousness of the injuries and that a fresh examination would enable the investigating agency to modify the charges if necessary. Senior Advocate Singh, however, disagreed with this approach, maintaining that stronger and more immediate action ought to have been taken in view of the gravity of the allegations.

During the hearing, the Bench also considered the legal distinction between the seriousness of an injury and the intention underlying the assault. Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that an injury to the head may not necessarily fall within the statutory categories of grievous hurt, yet the offence of attempt to murder depends principally upon the intention with which the act was committed rather than the ultimate nature of the injury. The Court further noted that, at the stage of registration of an FIR, the investigating agency is expected to assess the allegations at their highest before completing the investigation. Accepting the submissions that the assault was directed at a vital part of the victim's body and taking note of allegations that the accused, who served as the President of a Resident Welfare Association (RWA), was receiving protection from local police officers, the Court concluded that the interests of justice required an independent investigation. Accordingly, it ordered the transfer of the case to the Crime Branch and disposed of the writ petition with the above directions.