Rajpal vs State (GNCT Of Delhi)

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.

Petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No.36/2017 under Sections 302/341/323/34 IPC, Police Station Alipur.

The allegations in the FIR are that the complainant has a property dispute with one Braham Singh. On the night of the incident, the complainant

came to his house, when co-accused Hari Prakash came from behind and started beating him. Thereafter, the other co-accused including the

petitioner are alleged to have come and threatened that they would kill him. His father on hearing the noise came out. When the co-accused Braham

Prakash and Ashok Kumar are alleged to have caught hold of the complainant, Hari Prakash and the petitioner Rajpal are alleged to have started

beating his father. It is alleged that all four of them gave kicks and blows to his father, on account of which, he fell down and could not get up. He was

taken to Max Hospital where he was declared dead. It is alleged that his father died on account of blows given by fists and kicks on stomach and

below his stomach.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. It is contended that it is false to contend that the petitioner

had even touched the father of the complainant. It is submitted that no blows were given to the father of the complainant and he died on account of

natural circumstances. He further submits that MLC does not support the case of the prosecution and does not substantiate the fact that the deceased

died on account of injuries which are alleged to have been inflicted by the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that at the time of the framing of charge, Trial Court sought expert opinion and summoned a

doctor, who after examining the medical report, had opined that the injuries mentioned in the column of external injury in themselves were not

sufficient to cause death in ordinary cause of nature. Medical report showed that there were fractures of underlined 2 nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th left side

ribs along midclavicular line as well as fracture of sternum and fracture of underlined 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th ribs of right side along midclavicular line.

Further, the doctor in his statement has stated that the internal injuries in the Post-mortem Report could be caused by Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation

(CPR) efforts and could be peri-mortem injuries. Though the doctor stated that he could not rule out that the petitioner did not die because of some

trivial injuries during scuffle, he further stated that abrasions as mentioned in external injury column could have precipitated an already compromised

heart.

MLC filed on record shows that the patient had become unresponsive before arrival at Max emergency. In view of the fact that the patient was

unresponsive and pulse and blood pressure was not detectable, CPR was administered. However, patient could not be revived and was declared

brought dead.

CCTV footage of the incident has also been produced by the Investigating Officer. CCTV footage was also produced and seen by the court while

considering the application seeking regular Bail filed by co-accused Braham Singh. After seeing the CCTV footage, this Court had granted regular bail

to the said co-accused on 16.05.2018.

Though in the CCTV footage the spot is partly obscured by a board, but it can be clearly seen that the footage does not prima facie support the

allegation that the deceased was caught hold of by the petitioner and the co-accused and four of them had given blows with fists and kicks to him.

There are no external injuries noticed. Mere minor abrasions are noticed on the limbs, which could be the result of the fall. The injuries mentioned in

the column of external injury in themselves were not sufficient to cause death in ordinary cause of nature. The internal injuries in the Post-mortem

Report could be caused by Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) efforts and could be peri-mortem injuries. Medical opinion on Post-mortem report

opines the cause of death as injuries to the chest precipitating failure of already compromised heart.

Without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of regular bail.

Accordingly, on petitioner furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court,

the petitioner shall be released on bail, if not required in any other case. Petitioner shall not do anything which may prejudice either the trial or the

prosecution witnesses. Petitioner shall not make any endeavour to contact either the complainant or family of the complainant. Petitioner shall not

leave the country without the permission of the Trial Court.

The petition is disposed of in the above terms.

Order Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.