PREM CHAND Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent Nos.2 to 7 are facing prosecution for an offence under Section 304 IPC. Initially, FIR against the private respondents was lodged under Sections 148, 307, 325, 324, 323 IPC read with Section 149 IPC. As per the allegations, the private respondents-accused had inflicted injuries on the person of Rakesh Kumar on 19.11.2007 at 4.30 P.M. in the area of Village Achalpur. Rakesh Kumar ultimately died on 2.3.2010.

(2.) It is on record that Rakesh Kumar, after occurrence, was got admitted in hospital on 19.11.2007, from where he was discharged on 30.12.2007. He was again admitted in the hospital and remained under treatment from 12.1.2008 to 7.3.2008. However, there is no material available on record to show whether Rakesh Kumar remained under treatment thereafter and if so where he remained under treatment from 7.3.2008 till his death on 2.3.2010. Accordingly, it has been viewed that death of Rakesh Kumar may not be sufficiently related to the injuries sustained by him in the occurrence in question.

(3.) On the death of Rakesh Kumar, the question of framing charge under Section 302 IPC was considered by the Court. The counsel appearing for the parties made submissions in this regard. Noticing the facts and after making reference to the post mortem report, the Court did decide not to prefer a charge under Section 302 IPC. The Court, however, framed charge under Section 304 IPC. What primarily weighed with the Court while framing charge under Section 304 IPC is that no specific finding was found recorded by the doctor for the time gap between injuries and death in the post mortem report. The Court, however, has noticed that the death had taken place due to old head injury, which opinion is recorded in the post mortem report. As per the opinion of the doctor, the death was due to aspiration pneumonitis and septicemia as a result of head injury. It is accordingly noticed that death of Rakesh Kumar was due to some infection and negligence in not getting the treatment. The injury on the head, however, was declared dangerous and so the Court thought it fit to frame a charge under Section 304 IPC.