RAM KUMAR TYAGI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The facts relevant for the present application are : on the night of 4/5th July 1991 at about 2.55 A.M. a case of death on account of bullet shot was registered at P.S. Mansarover Park, Delhi. The incident occurred in a marriage party. The petitioner herein as well as the deceased Ranbir Singh were part of a marriage party. Admittedly the petitioner as well as deceased Ranbir Singh and a few others had enjoyed drinks and at the relevant time they were dancing in front of the marriage procession. The petitioner as well as deceased Ranbir Singh had revolvers in their hands and were firing in the air through their respective revolvers as part of enjoyment and marriage celebrations. In the course of dancing and while shots were being' fired, one bullet hit deceased Ranbir Singh. He was immediately rushed to the hospital where he was declared as "brought dead". The FIR was lodged by one Jitender Kumar who was an employee of deceased Ranbir Singh. As per version in the FIR the deceased was under the influence of liquor. He took the revolver in his hand to fire while dancing along with others as a part of celebration of the occasion. During the dancing and while Ranbir Singh was holding the revolver in his hand, somebody struck against him as a result of which the hand in which he was holding the revolver was shaken and he got the bullet injury on his right temple from his own revolver. Ranbir Singh fell down and blood started oozing out from his temple. He was removed to the G.T.B. Hospital. In the hospital he was declared as 'brought dead'. Several other persons who were in the marriage party are also alleged to have given the same version of the incident. However, there was yet another version recorded on 6th July 1991. This was in the shape of statements of Jitender son of lqbal Singh who is the brother of the widow of Ranbir Singh and Kesar Singh, brother of the deceased. According to these two .persons, the bullet had hit the deceased on his forehead just above his nose and towards the right eyebrow. These two persons further added that according to them some other person had shot the deceased but they were unable to say as to who that other person was. The FIR was registered under Section 304-A Indian Penal Code .

(2.) The police filed the report under Section 173 Criminal Procedure Code on 28th May, 1993 for a case aginst the petitioner under Section 304A Indian Penal Code. In the meanwhile, however, the wife of the deceased, namely, Ms. Jeet Chaudhary filed a complaint on 7th November, 1992 alleging that the petitioner along with certain other persons named in the complaint had committed murder of her husband. In other words, she lodged a complaint against the petitioner and some others for offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. The widow also made a grievance that in connivance with the petitioner, the local police had not properly investigated the case. The local police was trying to help the petitioner to escape the charge under Section 302 Indian Penal Code according to her. It is on record that the case was investigated by three agancies : first by the local police, then by the special staff. East District, and thereafter by the Crime Branch. The case registered under Section 304A Indian Penal Code was proceeding before a Metropolitan Magistrate while the complaint of the widow of the deceased was before another Metropolitan Magistrate. In pursuance of her complaint, the complainant led some preliminary evidence which included the statement of Dr. L.K. Baruah of Civil Hospital, Delhi. The main point in the said statement for present purposes is that the fatal shot was fired from the front from about a distance of three feet. The punctured hole was seen about the right eyebrow of the size of the 0.9 cm x 0.9 cm. This statement was recorded on 4th December, 1993. On the same day, another statement of one Satbir was recorded according to which petitioner Ram Kumar Tyagi had fired at Ranbir Singh, deceased. On the basis of the complaint of Smt. Jeet Chaudhary, documents placed on record and the preliminary evidence adduced, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate felt prima facie satisfied that a case was made out against the petitioner Ram Kumar Tyagi under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and on 24th January, 1994 ordered the accused to be summoned.

(3.) In the statement of Smt. Jeet Chaudhary recorded on 4th of December, 1993 in support of her complaint, she clearly implicated the petitioner for having committed the murder of her husband. However, it is worth nothing that she had given a statement on 21st September, 1991, i.e., about two and a half months after the incident. In that statement, she did not level any such accusation against the petitioner. In the said statement, she also admitted that Jitender who lodged the FIR was the servant of the deceased.