Medical Evidence Prevails Over Assumptions: P&H High Court Drops Grievous Hurt Charges Against Doctors in Gurugram Assault Case
Case Name: Dr. Rohit Lalit and Others v. State of Haryana and Another ; Nishant Verma v. State of Haryana and Others
Date of Judgment: 29 May 2026
Citation: CRR-2289-2025 and CRR-1437-2025
Bench: Justice Sumeet Goel
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that where the medical record consistently describes the injuries as simple in nature and there is no radiological or other reliable medical evidence establishing grievous hurt, charges under Sections 325 and 331 IPC cannot be sustained. The Court modified the charge order by directing that charges be framed under Sections 323, 330, 341, 201, 506 and 34 IPC instead. It further declined the complainant’s request for addition of offences under Sections 307, 379-B and 149 IPC or for arraigning additional accused.
Summary: The case arose out of FIR No. 173 dated 27.08.2023 registered at Police Station New Colony, Gurugram, on allegations that the complainant, Nishant Verma, was wrongfully restrained, assaulted and threatened by the accused, including Dr. Rohit Lalit. Initially, offences under Sections 147, 149, 323, 341, 379-B and 506 IPC were invoked. During investigation, the police obtained multiple medical opinions concerning the injuries allegedly suffered by the complainant.
The medical material assumed central importance in the dispute. The complainant’s MLR recorded various contusions, swelling and complaints of pain. Thereafter, multiple opinions were sought from Government Hospital, Gurugram. The medical experts repeatedly opined that the injuries were simple in nature. Even after the complainant obtained treatment from a private dental clinic and underwent extraction of a tooth more than two months after the incident, the Government medical board reaffirmed that the dental injury continued to be simple and that there was no radiological material establishing any grievous injury.
The investigating agency subsequently deleted the offence under Section 379-B IPC and exonerated several persons after recording statements and examining the available evidence. A charge-sheet was ultimately filed only against the petitioners under Sections 323, 325, 331, 341, 201, 506 and 34 IPC. The trial Court framed charges accordingly, leading to two revision petitions before the High Court—one by the accused seeking deletion of Sections 325 and 331 IPC and the other by the complainant seeking addition of Sections 307, 379-B and 149 IPC as well as prosecution of further persons.
While examining the challenge, the High Court undertook a detailed analysis of the law relating to “grievous hurt” under Section 320 IPC. The Court noted that the prosecution’s case of grievous injury rested primarily upon the subsequent extraction of a tooth. However, the Court found no medical evidence establishing a causal link between the alleged assault and the later extraction procedure. The medical opinions available on record consistently classified the injury as simple. The Court emphasised that grievous hurt cannot be inferred through assumptions, conjectures or possibilities and must be supported by reliable medical evidence.
The Court further observed that Section 331 IPC specifically requires the causing of grievous hurt. Once the medical record itself restricted the injuries to simple hurt, the foundational requirement for attracting Section 331 IPC disappeared. At best, the allegations could attract Section 330 IPC, which deals with voluntarily causing hurt to extort confession or information. The Court therefore concluded that the trial Court had erred in directing framing of charges under Sections 325 and 331 IPC.
As regards the complainant’s plea for inclusion of offences under Sections 307, 379-B and 149 IPC and prosecution of additional persons, the Court found no justification to interfere with the investigation findings at the stage of charge. It held that the question before it was limited to the legality of the charge order against the accused who had been charge-sheeted and that issues relating to exonerated persons fell outside the scope of the present proceedings.
Decision: The High Court partly allowed the revision petition filed by the accused and modified the impugned order. Charges under Sections 325 and 331 IPC were set aside and substituted with a charge under Section 330 IPC. The accused were directed to face trial for offences under Sections 323, 330, 341, 201, 506 and 34 IPC. The revision petition filed by the complainant seeking addition of offences under Sections 307, 379-B and 149 IPC and prosecution of further accused was declined.