PARVEEN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to petitioners in Criminal Complaint No.59/1 of 2010 dated 20.02.2010 under Sections 302 and 120 -B of Indian Penal Code during the pendency of the complaint. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in the case whereas they were not involved in any manner as has also been affirmed by the detailed investigation conducted by the Police. During the course of investigation, the petitioners were subjected to lie detector/polygraph test wherein it was found that they were not party to any conspiracy to kill deceased -Sangeeta. Learned senior counsel further submits that on the basis of thorough investigation conducted by the Police, cancellation report was prepared on 30.01.2008 and the same was presented before the Court of competent jurisdiction but as the complainant was not satisfied with the investigation carried out by the Police and he filed a protest petition. The petitioners have been summoned in protest petition. Learned senior counsel also submits that the petitioners are ready to join the Court proceedings and to abide by all the terms and conditions to be imposed by this Court or by the trial Court and nothing is to be recovered from them. They have been summoned after long delay. It is also the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that as per medical opinion, the cause of death has not been established to be homicidal in nature. In the post mortem examination conducted upon the dead body of the deceasedSangeeta, no external injury was found. As per opinion of doctor, the death was caused due to suffocation induced by pressure on the chest resulting into fracture of second rib, rupture of left pleura and lung, which was the outcome of fall suffered by deceased -Sangeeta.

(2.) LEARNED counsel further submits that as per the opinion of the doctors of PGIMS, Rohtak, the said fracture was responsible for causing the death and the fracture of a single rib and the associated injuries were least likely to be caused as a result of fall. Learned senior counsel submits that the petitioners have been summoned only on the basis of opinion of the doctors whereas the death was result of fall in the kitchen. Said opinion was formed by the doctors on the basis of documents, which were supplied to them. No motive whatsoever has been proved against the petitioners. The petitioners have been summoned without taking into consideration the cancellation report filed by the Police. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Maninder Kaur and ors. vs. Teja Singh, 2000 4 AICLR 768, Anita @ Pinki and Anr. vs. Krishan Lal Mehta and Anr., S.L.P. (Crl.) No.147 (2002) as well as judgment of this Court in Chet Singh and Ors. vs. The State of Punjab, 1978 5 CriLT 140 in support of his contentions.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for respondent No.2 submits that it is not only a case of unnatural death but the Police was reluctant in registering the FIR as the FIR was registered only after the intervention of higher Police authorities. The death occurred in the house of the petitioners and as per provisions of Section 106 of Evidence Act, the burden to prove is upon the accused persons. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 further submits that it has specifically been mentioned in the complaint that the petitioners were party to conspiracy. PW2 Dr. Sushil Kumar and PW3 Dr. Sarita Gulati in their statements deposed regarding post mortem report conducted by them and stated that the death was caused due to asphyxia. PW2 Dr. Sushil Kumar has even remarked that death was caused due to suffocation induced by pressure on the chest resulting into fracture of second rib, rupture of left pleura and lung. As per PMR, no external injury was present on the person of deceased. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 also submits that in such a situation when a person falls in the kitchen but does not suffer a single injury, appears to be unbelievable. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has also relied upon order passed under similar circumstances in Criminal Misc. No. M -31735 of 2012 on 09.10.2012 wherein it has been held that in case of unnatural death, anticipatory bail cannot be granted simply by stating that it is a complaint case. Similarly, the present case is not only the case of unnatural death but also the one where death has occurred under mysterious circumstances.