Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 202 (PNJ)

Balwinder Sharma v. State of Punjab

2014-01-24

T.P.S.MANN

body2014
JUDGMENT Mr. T.P.S. Mann, J.:- The petitioners are seeking the concession of bail during the pendency of the trial of the case arising out of FIR No. 57 dated 20.3.2013 under Sections 302/323/324/341/506/34 IPC registered at Police Station Division No. 5, Jalandhar. 2. As per the prosecution case, Vinod Kumar son of Girdhari Lal was accosted by the petitioners on 16.3.2013 at about 10.30 p.m. when he was going on his motor cycle and had reached in front of F.C. Sondhi Factory. It was Vikram Chauhanpetitioner, who stopped him and asked about the whereabouts of Neeraj to which Vinod Kumar replied that he was not aware as to where Neeraj was. On this, Davinder Sharma-petitioner gave danda blows on his back, both shoulders and in the waist whereas Balwinder Sharma-petitioner tried to give a datar blow on his head but Vinod Kumar raised his right arm to ward off the same and received an injury on his right hand. Vinod Kumar started running away. He was given a chase by Vikram Chauhanpetitioner, who remained unsuccessful in over powering him. Vinod Kumar then called one Lucky Thapar, who removed him to Civil Hospital, Jalandhar for treatment. Aforementioned Vinod Kumar got recorded his statement before SI Vijay Kumar on 20.3.2013 at 11.05 p.m. on the basis of which aforementioned FIR was registered under Sections 323/341/506/34 IPC. On 21.3.2013 at 3.40 a.m. Vinod Kumar died and offence under Section 302 IPC was added in the case and the petitioners arrested. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that during his medico-legal examination, Vinod Kumar, since deceased, was found to have four injuries on his person all of which were simple in nature and on non-vital parts. Subsequent thereto Vinod Kumar did not bother to get himself treated and was not found on bed in the hospital on 17.3.2013 at 6.00 a.m., 10.00 a.m., 2.00 p.m. and 8.00 p.m., on 19.3.2013, at 9.00 p.m. and on 20.3.2013 from 8.00 p.m. to 3.00 a.m. It was only on 21.3.2013 that he was rushed to the hospital when he was vomiting. After his death on 21.3.2013 at 3.40 a.m., post-mortem was conducted in Civil Hospital, Jalandhar on 21.3.2013 at 12.15 p.m. by a board of doctors headed by Dr. Surinder Pal, EMO. After his death on 21.3.2013 at 3.40 a.m., post-mortem was conducted in Civil Hospital, Jalandhar on 21.3.2013 at 12.15 p.m. by a board of doctors headed by Dr. Surinder Pal, EMO. After noticing various injuries found on the dead body, the opinion regarding cause of death was deferred so as to await the report of the Chemical Examiner and the Histopathologist. After the report dated 28.5.2013 (Annexure P-4) prepared by Dr. Amarjit Singh, Professor and Head, Department of Pathology and Dr.Mandeep Randhawa, Lecturer, Department of Pathology, both of Government Medical College, Amritsar and addressed to Dr.Surinder Pal to the effect that the liver showed formation of pseudolobules separated by broad dense fibroconnective tissue septic and within the septa were seen trapped portal tracts; pseudolobules showed regeneration of hepatocytes with loss of architecture; patchy areas of fatty chain were also seen within the lobules; and appearances were those of cirrhosis of liver and the receipt of the report from the Chemical Examiner wherein no poison was detected in the contents of the exhibits, the medical board opined (Annexure P-5) that the cause of death was due to aspiration of gastric contents leading to hypoxia suddenly which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. It is further submitted that Dr. Surinder Pal, who headed the board which conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Vinod Kumar has since been examined by the prosecution as PW2 (Annexure P-9) and has reaffirmed the opinion earlier given by him and the other members of the board that the death of Vinod Kumar was due to aspiration of gastric contents leading to hypoxia suddenly which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that the injured died due to aspiration of gastric contents/food particles in the trachea and oesophagous and not because of the injuries on his body. Further, the liver of the deceased was having cirrhosis. The person, who are alcoholic suffer from cirrhosis and in case of cirrhosis of liver vomiting with blood is a common phenomena. Therefore, it was possible that the vomiting might have occurred because of the cirrhosis of the liver which led to aspiration. There was no other cause of death. Further, the liver of the deceased was having cirrhosis. The person, who are alcoholic suffer from cirrhosis and in case of cirrhosis of liver vomiting with blood is a common phenomena. Therefore, it was possible that the vomiting might have occurred because of the cirrhosis of the liver which led to aspiration. There was no other cause of death. Apart from the above, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Lucky Thapar, who was also cited as an eye witness by the prosecution has appeared as PW4 (Annexure P-10) before the trial Court but did not support the case of the prosecution. He was declared hostile at the request made by learned APP and cross-examined but still did not support the prosecution case. Accordingly, prayer has been made for the grant of bail to the petitioners, more-so, when they are in custody since 21.3.2013 and the trial of the case is moving at a snail’s pace. 4. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners by submitting that all the three petitioners had over-powered Vinod Kumar, since deceased on 16.3.2013 and caused injuries to him. The injuries attributed to the petitioners were reflected in the medico-legal report and the post-mortem report. As the injuries were responsible for the death of Vinod Kumar, the petitioners do not deserve the concession of bail. She has, however, informed the Court that out of nineteen witnesses cited by the prosecution, only five have been examined so far and the case is now fixed for 5.2.2014 for recording of further evidence of the prosecution. 5. Without going into the merits lest it may prejudice the case of either party, this Court is of the considered view that the further confinement of the petitioners in jail to await the outcome of the trial will not serve any useful purpose. 6. Resultantly, the petition is accepted and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail during the pendency of the trial of the case subject to each of them furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar.