The Delhi High Court has directed the trial court to reframe the charges against a passenger named Harvey Mann, accused of aggressive and abusive conduct onboard an Air India flight, after finding deficiencies in the original charge-framing process. The bench, led by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, noted that although the prosecution had listed three individuals as witnesses, their statements had not yet been recorded. It held that this was a serious omission and that the trial court should not have gone ahead with framing the charges without a supplementary chargesheet and without considering these witnesses who may have material relevance.
Harvey Mann is alleged to have threatened crew members, attempted to open the aircraft door mid-air multiple times, behaved abusively toward the uniformed staff, and expressed that he was ready for “shahadat” and would take everyone along with him. It is further alleged that he damaged airline property such as the remote for the Personal Television (PTV) and the armrest. The complaint against him was lodged in September 2022 by the Chief Cabin Crew of an Air India flight. According to the complaint, Mann refused to sit in his allocated seat, acted in a fit of rage after take-off, repeatedly tried to open the door, abused crew members, and threatened them.
Based on these allegations, a First Information Report was registered. Mann challenged the framing of charges before the trial court, asking for the order to be quashed. The trial court had framed charges under Section 3 of the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against Safety of Civil Aviation Act, 1982, and under Sections 427 (mischief causing damage), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 509 (insulting modesty of a woman) of the Indian Penal Code. Mann’s plea contended that since statements of key witnesses were not recorded and no supplementary chargesheet had been filed, the framing order was premature and unlawful.
The High Court found merit in this contention. It observed that a period of nearly three years had passed since the filing of the original chargesheet, yet no supplementary report had been submitted by the Investigating Officer to include the statements of the cited witnesses. The Court emphasized that these witnesses might have “considerable bearing” on the prosecution’s case, and that the trial court’s decision to frame charges without including their statements risked prejudice to the defence and an incomplete understanding of the allegations.
In view of this, the High Court disposed of Mann’s challenge to the framing of charges and remanded the matter to the trial court. The trial court is directed to call upon the Investigating Officer to explain why, despite the lapse of significant time, no supplementary chargesheet had been filed. If the prosecution intends to include evidence from these additional witnesses, that material must be recorded and filed. Only then should fresh orders on framing of charges be made, after duly considering the supplementary evidence.
The High Court’s order ensures that procedural fairness is maintained and that the accused is not unfairly subjected to charges without full disclosure and opportunity for defence. It underscores the principle that charges should only be framed when the prosecution has properly marshaled all credible and relevant witnesses and evidence, including that which may affect the accused’s defence.
The case is titled Harvey Mann vs. State (NCT of Delhi).
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.