Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1014 (HP)

State of H. P. v. Rakesh Kumar alias Raku

2015-08-04

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2015
Judgment : Sureshwar Thakur, Judge (Oral) Both these petitions are being disposed of by a common order as they are preferred against a common order rendered on 12.11.2014 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (1), Mandi, District Mandi, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge (1), Mandi allowed the bail applications preferred before it by the respondents herein for grant of bail to them. 2. The facts necessary for adjudication of the instant criminal revision petitions are that deceased Rakesh Kumar alias Rinku son of Shri Joginder Pal while driving his car bearing No.HP-33C-8002 purportedly under the influence of drugs/charas besides, at an excessive speed and in a rash and negligent manner sequelling his coming to lose control over the said vehicle, resultantly his vehicle crossed the road struck, against a cement wall and thereafter rolled down and crushed one Nikka Ram who was in the court yard of his house, sequelling his demise. In consequence to his body having been crushed under the car driven by deceased Rakesh Kumar alias Rinku, the aforesaid Nikka Ram suffered fatal wounds/injuries on his person,. A huge mob gathered at the site of accident. The complainant/informant/injured Vijay Kumar in the version qua the incident which begot the demise of the aforesaid Rakesh Kumar has therein attributed to the respondents herein the roles of theirs having delivered fist blows besides having slapped Rakesh Kumar alias Rinku. However, the version qua the incident narrated by the complainant Vijay Kumar does not attribute to them the role of theirs while purportedly wielding dandas having delivered blows with them on the head of the deceased Rakesh Kumar alias Rinku, rather the role of blows of dandas having been delivered on the head of the deceased, stands attributed by the complainant/injured Vijay Kumar to certain unknown persons. With theirs being a manifest segregation in the role attributed to Rakesh Kumar alias Rakku and Anil Kumar alias Nilu by the complainant Vijay Kumar vis-a-vis the role attributed by him to two unknown persons, who while wielding dandas struck blows with them on the head of the deceased sequelling injuries thereon to which injuries he ultimately succumbed. Naturally then with separate roles or segregable roles aforesaid attributed by the complainant/injured Vijay Kumar to the respondents herein vis-a-vis to certain unknown persons whose act of striking the head of the deceased with dandas wielded by them begot his demise. Naturally then with separate roles or segregable roles aforesaid attributed by the complainant/injured Vijay Kumar to the respondents herein vis-a-vis to certain unknown persons whose act of striking the head of the deceased with dandas wielded by them begot his demise. Furthermore, when the version qua the incident spelt out in the FIR omits to divulge therein that the respondents herein struck fist blows and slaps on the head of the deceased so as to sequel the injury/injuries thereon to which he succumbed, rather when the role of delivering of blows of dandas on the head of the deceased has been attributed to certain unknown persons. Concomitantly when the postmortem carried on the person of the deceased attributes/unravels the cause of the demise of the deceased, to the cumulative effect of haemorrhagic and neurogenic shock arising from the injury/injuries sustained by the deceased on his head in sequel to the blows of danda delivered thereon. As a corollary obviously then with certain unnamed persons having thereon delivered injuries with the user of danda by them respectively, fosters a deduction from this Court that the respondents herein while merely having meted out fist blows and slaps on the person of the deceased which hence did not sequel the demise of the deceased, naturally then the said role as attributed by the prosecution to the respondents herein may not constitute prima facie at this stage commission at their instance of an offence under Section 302 of the IPC. Even though, the provisions of Section 147 and 149 of the IPC have been added by the Investigating Officer against the respondents herein to attract against them, their vicarious liability for the act of certain unnamed persons who delivered blows with dandas on the person of the deceased sequelling his demise yet, with the distinct and segregable role of the respondents herein as enunciated hereinabove from the role of certain unnamed/unknown persons whose act of striking of danda blows on the head of the deceased begot his demise, reinforcingly the commission of offence, if any, at the instance of the respondents herein under the aforesaid provisions of law given the segregability of their roles visa- vis the roles of certain unnamed/unknown persons, especially when there is inadequate/insufficient evidence on record to show that respondents herein shared along with certain unknown/unnamed persons, whose delivering of blows with dandas on the head of the deceased begot his demise, a common object with them of hence murdering the deceased, is prima facie not made out. Preponderantly, the opening part of the FIR attributes to the respondents herein a role of theirs having meted slaps and fist blows on the person of the deceased, however, the latter part of the FIR, while underscoring a role of delivery of danda blows on the head of the deceased to certain unnamed/unknown persons yet omits to divulge that at that stage inasmuch as when certain unknown/unnamed persons struck blows of danda on the head of the deceased hence begot his demise, the respondents herein were present along with such unnamed/unknown persons, resultantly, the omission aforesaid prods this Court to conclude that hence the respondents herein prima facie at the stage aforesaid cannot be concluded to be vicariously liable along with those unnamed/unknown persons who delivered blows with dandas on the head of the deceased. Moreover, it cannot also be said that the respondents herein hence allegedly committed offences under Sections 147 and 149 of the IPC, so as to render them amenable along with certain unknown/unnamed persons who by their act of delivering/striking on the head of the deceased blows of dandas wielded by them, committed the murder of the latter. 3. Moreover, it cannot also be said that the respondents herein hence allegedly committed offences under Sections 147 and 149 of the IPC, so as to render them amenable along with certain unknown/unnamed persons who by their act of delivering/striking on the head of the deceased blows of dandas wielded by them, committed the murder of the latter. 3. The upshot of the above discussion is that with prima facie at this stage, there being no emanation from the available material on record of the respondents having committed offences under Section 302 read with Sections 147 and 149 of the IPC, in sequel the acceptance of the revision petitions would result in unnecessarily fettering or curtailing their liberty. Consequently, there is no merit in these petitions and the same are dismissed accordingly. It is, however, made clear that the findings recorded hereinabove will have no bearing on the merits of the case.