Khazan Singh vs State of Haryana

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.

The petitioner, in this case, has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No. 68 dated 11.3.1996 under Sections 302, 307, 148, 149, 323 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Taoru and has given this application for being released on bail.

The deceased in this case is Mohinder and the death is alleged to have been caused by the petitioner by running him over a tractor. The incident took place on 11.3.1996 and Mohinder died on 11.5.1996. It is contended by the complainant Subh Ram that on 5.30 p.m. petitioner and four others came at the place of occurrence armed with Jally and Lathies. They came on a tractor trolley with common intention and started to dig foundation further on the land on which shops are situated. He has also stated that the complainant restrained them from digging the foundation. Some other persons including his son also followed him (complainant) and all of them reached there. The complainant and others told that they had obtained the stay orders from the court of Sessions and further they they should stop the work immediately but the petitioner and others started abusing. It is also contended that Dharam said that they be run over by the tractor and finished and on this, Khazan son of Jai Narain started the tractor and run over Mohinder with the intention to kill him and Mohinder was hence crushed by the tractor.

It is in the complaint itself that there is a civil suit going on and that there is a dispute regarding nine acres of land and that the said land has a common Khewat.

The petitioner has also received some injuries in the alleged incident and the injuries mentioned in the petition have not been disputed.

So far as the petitioner is concerned, the only part assigned to him is that he ran over the tractor on the deceased, and that no blow with any weapon has been assigned to him.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited before me the case of Kashmira Singh v. Duman Singh, 1996(3) Recent Criminal Reports 58 : JT 1996(6) SC 177 . It was a case where the cancellation of the bail order was challenged and the cancellation order was set aside. In that case there was fight between two groups and that which party had launched the attack was held to be a matter of evidence. In that case there was casualty on both sides since both sides were armed. In that case, it was held that nonfiling of a crosscomplaint cannot alter the factual reality and that the possibility of the respondent''s side being the aggressor or there being a free fight cannot be overlooked and that there were injuries on both sides.

Learned counsel for the State of Haryana has cited before me the case of State of Haryana v. Pala and others, 1996(1) Recent Criminal Reports 677 : JT 1996(2) SC 416 . In that case, the trial court convicted the appellants under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the High Court, in appeal, applied exception 4 to Section 300 and sentenced the accused for the period already undergone by them. It was held in that case that the supervening event of septicaemia was not of any consequence as the death was only on account of head injuries and other injuries caused to the deceased and that the accused shared common intention to kill the deceased and are liable to conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. This case has been cited before me because in this case also, the deceased died because of haemorrhage and septic shock resulting from the injuries.

Learned counsel for the State has also cited before me the case of Amar Singh v. The State, 1969 P.L.R. 358 wherein it was held that whether an injury is not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death is determinable as soon as the injury is inflicted provided that details of the damage caused by it are available. It has further been held that whether death ultimately results from the injury or not would not necessarily be a factor to be considered and that an injury which is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, may not be allowed to cause death, by recourse to medical treatment, and that on the other hand, an injury which is not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death may still result in death if it is mishandled. It has also been held that the medical treatment or the mishandling does not play any part in the determination of the question whether the injury was or was not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death provided its details at the time of infliction are known.

The principles of the above rulings are clear. The medical evidence shows that the death was due to haemorrhage and septic shock resulting from injuries. Therefore, it is not a case where death was due to septicemia alone. Considering the overall effect, the death being because of the injuries cannot be ruled out. The cause of death as per the postmortem report is because of the injuries sustained by the deceased and all the injuries are antemortem in nature and are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. However, the one of the facts which weights while deciding this bail application is that the petitioner himself also suffered injuries in the incident which are mentioned at serial No. 3 in paragraph 14 of the petition. There were as many as 6 injuries on the person of the petitioner and out of these, one injury is on the skull. Moreover, there is a cross case also. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the deceased tried to control the steering of the tractor and fell down and hence received injuries and thereafter run over by the tractor. This factor adds to the case for releasing on bail. The actual facts shall be decided at the time of trial after evidence of the parties. In my opinion the above circumstances are sufficient for allowing this bail application because at present it cannot be said that the possibility of the incident as alleged by the petitioner is ruled out.

In view of the above reasons, I allow this bail application and order that on furnishing of bail bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/ with one surety in the like amount, the petitioner be released on bail, to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon.