The case began with a video the woman posted online, showing a car swerving into her motorcycle. Police took suo motu cognisance, registered an FIR, and after examining the footage added attempt-to-murder, stalking and modesty-related charges. The accused was arrested in Rajasthan. His family says it was an accident. None of the allegations has been tested, and the investigation is at an early stage.
Gurugram: The Gurugram Police have arrested the car driver accused of hitting a woman motorcyclist on Golf Course Road, and have added a charge of attempt to murder to the case, along with charges relating to stalking and to acts intended to outrage the modesty of a woman, under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
The accused was arrested from Dausa in Rajasthan on September 15. The Commissioner of Police confirmed the arrest, and the police have said the investigation is continuing.
How the case arose
The police are stated to have taken suo motu cognisance of a video posted on social media by the complainant, who identifies herself as Sia, which showed a car swerving towards her motorcycle and striking it on Golf Course Road. An FIR was registered at the Sector 56 police station, and the police have said that after analysing action-camera and CCTV footage they added the further charges.
The provision relating to attempt to murder under the BNS carries imprisonment of up to ten years. The police are also recording the complainant’s detailed statement, and her family is reported to have submitted a written statement to the Station House Officer.
The complainant’s allegations
In her video, the complainant alleged that the driver had chased her while she was riding with a group of bikers, that he had gestured at her to stop, and that when she asked him to keep his distance he continued. She further alleged that the driver appeared to be intoxicated and had made indecent comments and gestures. The footage, recorded by a camera mounted on her bike, appeared to show the car swerving towards her and hitting the motorcycle, after which she was thrown off and the motorcycle skidded some distance.
These are the complainant’s allegations, and they have not been tested or established.
The defence version
A lawyer representing the accused’s family denied the allegations and maintained that the incident was an accident. He is reported to have said that the riders had been provoking the accused and gesturing as if to race, that when the accused increased his speed to move ahead he lost control near a U-turn, and that the car touched the bike accidentally. On that account, there was no intention to harm.
The police have said the accused went absconding after a media interview, switching off his phone, and that teams were formed to trace him. He is also reported to have attempted to flee briefly after arrest and to have sustained minor injuries in the process, following which he was given first aid. A relative of the accused is reported to have been arrested in connection with the incident.
Why it matters
Beyond the immediate facts, the case turns on a question that recurs whenever a vehicle is used in an altercation: when does a collision cross the line from a rash-driving offence into attempt to murder. The distinction is one of intention. A momentary loss of control, even a negligent or reckless one, is ordinarily dealt with as an offence of causing hurt by a rash or negligent act. Attempt to murder requires the prosecution to show that the act was done with the intention or knowledge that it was likely to cause death. Deliberately steering a car into a motorcyclist, if that is what the evidence establishes, can meet that threshold; an accidental clip near a turn, if that is what happened, will not.
That is precisely the fault line between the two accounts in this case, and it is why the camera footage is likely to be decisive. The complainant’s case is that the car was steered at her after a period of chasing and gesturing, which if accepted supplies the element of intention. The defence case is that the contact was the accidental consequence of a speed manoeuvre near a U-turn, which if accepted negatives it. Whether the footage shows a deliberate swerve or a loss of control is not something a news report can resolve, and it is for the investigation and, if the matter goes to trial, the court to determine.
The stalking and modesty-related charges add a further dimension, and they too will require their own proof. The mere fact of one vehicle following another in traffic does not by itself establish stalking, which has a specific statutory meaning; courts have repeatedly cautioned that the offence is not made out by isolated or ambiguous conduct. What the added charges reflect at this stage is the complainant’s account of being pursued and harassed, not a finding that it occurred.
For now, the position is that an FIR has been registered, charges have been added on the strength of the police’s reading of the footage, an arrest has been made, and the accused’s family disputes the entire characterisation. Nothing has been adjudicated. The registration of an FIR and the addition of charges reflect allegations and the direction of an investigation; they are not proof of guilt, and the accused is entitled to the presumption of innocence.
Case: FIR registered at Sector 56 Police Station, Gurugram, under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 including the provisions relating to attempt to murder, stalking and outraging the modesty of a woman
Status: Accused arrested in Rajasthan. Investigation continuing. Allegations untested; no charge established. The accused’s family denies the allegations and describes the incident as an accident.