HC seeks police reply on Khalid’s plea against discharge of accused of attempt to murder charge

New Delhi, Mar 13 (PTI) The Delhi High Court on Wednesday sought the response of police and the two men who had allegedly opened fire at activist Umar Khalid outside the Constitution Club here in 2018 on his plea challenging a trial court order discharging the duo of the attempt to murder charge.

Charges had been framed against the two accused for the offences punishable under sections 201 (destruction of evidence), 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the IPC and sections 25 and 27 (possessing prohibited arms and ammunition) of the Arms Act, which are triable by a magistrate court.

Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta issued notices to the police and the two accused, Darvesh and Naveen Dalal, on former JNU student Khalid’s petition challenging the December 6, 2023 order passed by an additional sessions judge at Patiala House Courton.

The court listed the matter for further hearing on May 21.

Khalid was attacked when he was on his way to take part in the event ‘Khauff se Azaadi’ (Freedom from Fear) that was being held at the Constitution Club on August 13, 2018. He escaped unhurt.

The two men were arrested from Fatehabad in Haryana’s Hisar district on August 20, 2018. A case of attempt to murder was registered by the police in connection with the incident.

While discharging the two men of the offence of attempt to murder, the trial court had said that accused Dalal had merely pointed the pistol towards the victim or complainant but had not fired any shot.

There is no allegation or material on record to suggest that the accused has pulled the trigger or attempted to pull the trigger, it had said.

“The statement and material on record do not show any definite intention to cause the death of the complainant/ victim by the accused.

“The definite intention to cause the death of the complainant/ victim should necessarily entail analysis of the last act specifically. The prosecution has to show whether the last act was such that if the said act would not have been avoided, it would result in the death of the complainant/ victim.

“In the present case merely pointing the pistol towards the complainant/ victim would not have resulted in his death. It is not the case of the prosecution that the accused has been prevented from firing or pulling the trigger,” it had said.