Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 483 (MP)

Kedar v. State of M. P.

2017-04-11

ANAND PATHAK

body2017
ORDER : Anand Pathak, J. The present revision petition under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioners challenging the order dated 18/10/2016 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Joura, District Morena in Session Trial No.2900200/2016 by which charges under Sections 302, 307, 325, 324, 323, 294, 506-B 147, 148, 149 of IPC have been framed against the present petitioners. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that charge against the petitioners in respect of Section 302 of IPC has been wrongly framed because from perusal of the charge-sheet and medical documents appended thereto charge under Section 302 of IPC could not have been framed. He relied upon the letter dated 12/02/2016 written by Assistant Professor, Forensic Medicine and Toxicology G.R. Medical College, Gwalior to Superintendent of Police, District-Morena, wherein Doctor Chandra Shekhar Wagmal has clarified the position that there is nothing to suggest that the pathology was developed due to head injury. 3. Similarly, as per Leave Against Medical Advise (LAMA) history of victim at Ganga Ram Hospital, diagnosis was tubercular mengiencephalities, sepsis, acute kidney injury. They did not find any irritative focus in MRI, Antitubercular Medicine was started and therefore, according to counsel for the petitioners the victim was already suffering from some decease and therefore, could not be fastened with the charge of Section 302 of IPC. 4. He further relied upon the postmortem report dated 29/12/2015 given by Dr. Chandra Shekhar, wherein no specific reason for cause of death has been given nor the death has been considered as homicidal in nature. He further relied upon LAMA summery of department of neurology (unit 2) of Sir Ganga Ram Hospital and tried to contend that victim was already suffering from some decease as referred above and therefore, cause of death is not, as projected by the prosecution in the charge-sheet. He further contends that Viscera report does not contain any chemical position and therefore, petitioners have been charged excessively under Section 302 of IPC. 5. He further contends that Viscera report does not contain any chemical position and therefore, petitioners have been charged excessively under Section 302 of IPC. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State on the basis of explanation II of Section 299 of IPC countered the argument of the petitioners/revisionist and submits that explanation II of Section 299 of IPC categorically stipulates that if the death is caused by bodily injury then the person who caused such bodily injury shall be deemed to have caused the death, even if, the person died after sometime and even if resorting to proper care and medical treatment, the death might have been prevented. In the preset case, according to counsel for the respondent the blow given by the present petitioners to the victim on his head caused fracture which led to sepsis and therefore, on the basis of sepsis the body succumbed to injuries although at a later point of time. By the margin of time, it cannot be presumed that the death was natural death, but it was a case of homicidal death. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. In the present case, date of incident is 10/11/2015 and the victim died on 29/12/2015 i.e., almost one and half month after the incident. Petitioners through Leave Against Medical Advise (LAMA) history of Ganga Ram Hospital pertaining to the victim tried to assert that cause of death was not the blows given by the petitioners over the victim. The said fact at this stage cannot be appreciated. Charges for alleged offences have been framed on the basis charge-sheet filed by the prosecution. Section 299 of IPC contemplates different exigencies regarding offences affecting life. Explanation II of Section 299 of IPC deals in respect of such cases where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who caused such bodily injury shall be deemed to have caused the death although by resorting to proper remedies and skillful treatment the death might have been prevented. If the said explanation is borrowed here in the present case, then from perusal of medical record submitted along with charge-sheet as well as the documents submitted by the petitioners herein, no definite opinion can be given at this stage whether the sepsis caused to the victim was because of any pre existing decease or because of said incident dated 10/11/2015. Injuries caused on said fateful day may or may not have been the reason for the death of the victim therefore, at this stage on the basis of LAMA history and postmortem report, this Court cannot interfere into the very narrow jurisdiction of revision against the charge. Resultantly, the petition preferred by the petitioners against the charges levelled over the petitioners under Sections 302, 307, 325, 324, 323, 294, 506-B 147, 148, 149 of IPC have been rightly framed. 8. Considering the fact that petitioners have the opportunity in the trial Court to plead and prove their innocence, if any, no interference is made out in the present petition. Thus, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed.