Bombay High Court
Radharaman S/O Rishikesh Tiwari vs State Of Mah., Thr. Its ... on 16 February, 2021
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Avinash G. Gharote
criwp589.19.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 589/2019
PETITIONERS: 1. Radharaman Rishikesh Tiwari, aged about
47 years, Occ. Service, R/o. Ramsingh Pali
Chakki, Kiraat Layout, Mankapur, Nagpur,
Police Station - Mankapur.
2. Poonam Radharaman Tiwari, aged about
44 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. Ramsingh Pali
Chakki, Kiraat Layout, Mankapur, Nagpur,
Police Station - Mankapur.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS: 1. State of Maharashtra, through its
Commissioner of Police, Nagpur City,
Civil Lines, Nagpur.
2. The Police Inspector,
Sandip Bhosle, Investigation Officer,
Crime Branch, Nagpur City, Nagpur.
3. Narendra Yashwantrao Khandait
(Deleted)
4. Shri Rahul Bajaj (deleted)
5. Shri Shekhar Bajaj (deleted)
6. Shri Sanjay Bhargava (deleted)
7. Shri Purushotamdas Dwarkaprasad
Khemuka (deleted)
8. Smt. Bhavana Gaturwar (deleted)
9. Shri Badri Prasad Shankar Prasad
Pande (deleted)
::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 17/02/2021 23:06:44 :::
criwp589.19.odt
2
10. Ajay Nandlal Turkar,
aged about 18 years, Occ. Student,
R/o. Plot No. 94, Near Mahalaxmi
Medical, Hariom Nagar, Dattwadi,
Nagpur, Police Station - Wadi
11. Naresh Patni s/o Bansilal (deleted)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri K.R.Trivedi, Advocate for petitioners
Shri S.M.Ghodeswar, APP for respondent no.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JJ.
DATE : 16/02/2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)
Heard.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard
finally by consent of learned counsel appearing for the
parties.
2] This petition has been filed by the parents of
deceased Rahul Tiwari, who was studying, at the time of his
death, in 12th standard. The incident took place in the
afternoon of 02.08.2018. It is seen from the statement of
eye-witnesses that on 02.08.2018, 12th standard classes were
going on as usual and at about 3.45 p.m., some of the boys
criwp589.19.odt
and girls took certain liberties and started playing pranks with
each other.
3] It is further seen from the version of the
eye-witnesses that during the course of such pranks, there
was a heated exchange of words between deceased Rahul and
accused Ajay Turkar and it slowly turned into a fight in which,
it is alleged that the accused Ajay gave slaps to deceased
Rahul, due to which deceased Rahul fell down on the floor
and sustained injuries. It was then noticed that some froth
had started coming out of mouth of Rahul and the boys &
girls who had an occasion to witness this incident were
horrified. They called for the help and by the time the
teachers and senior lecturers gathered at the spot, Rahul had
slept into unconsciousness and so he was taken to Dande
Hospital, where he was declared as brought dead.
4] The post mortem examination was conducted
and initially the opinion was reserved and finally opinion
regarding cause of death was issued by the Doctor on
11.09.2018. The Doctor opined that the cause of death was
criwp589.19.odt
"cerebral and pulmonary oedema in a case with history and
circumstances suggestive of vagal inhibition".
5] It is the contention of learned counsel for the
petitioner that the opinion as to the cause of death suggests
occurrence of death due to pressing of neck from both sides
and this is what the expression "vagal inhibition" means. He
submits that, however, the statements recorded and material
gathered by the I.O. indicates something different. He
pointed out that just before deceased Rahul fell unconscious,
according to the version of eye-witnesses, Rahul was slapped
on the face by accused Ajay. According to the learned
counsel, this version is not prima facie consistent with the
cause of death mentioned in the opinion of the doctor dated
11.09.2018 and therefore, it is necessary that proper
investigation in the matter be made and as the I.O. is not
performing his duty, necessary direction is required to be
issued to the I.O. He also submits that it is not possible in
ordinary course of circumstances that a person would die only
upon receiving some slaps.
criwp589.19.odt
6] It is true that the opinion as regards cause of
death indicates that "cerebral and pulmonary oedem" that was
noticed in the dead body of Rahul and it was suggestive of
"vagal inhibition". The petitioners themselves have
elaborated this expression in the memo of petition in
paragraph 25. The petitioners state that "vagal inhibition"
means "stopping the heart by stimulation of the vagus nerve
in the neck. This can be caused by pressure on the neck."
Now, if this meaning is accepted as it is, it would only mean
that "vagal inhibition" is nothing but stimulation of vagus
nerve in the neck and one of the factors which would cause
such stimulation is bringing of pressure on the neck. It would
also mean that there could be many other factors by which
such stimulation of the vagus nerve of the neck is possible.
Once this is understood, we do not think that the version of
the incident as given by the eye-witnesses could be
considered as inconsistent with the post mortem report or
contradictory to what has been opined by the doctor as regard
the cause of death. Thus, the possibility of stimulation of
vagus nerve occurring due to slapping also cannot be ruled
criwp589.19.odt
out. Therefore, we do not think that the investigation made
in this case could be termed as ineffective or improper or
negligent.
7] As regards the filing of charge-sheet, we must say
that at present it takes care of the concern expressed by the
petitioners, as the charge-sheet has been filed for an offence
under Section 304 of I.P.C. However, during the course of
trial, if the Juvenile Court comes across further evidence
suggesting the case to be of murder, the Juvenile Court would
always be at liberty to also charge the juvenile in conflict of
law for such an offence in accordance with the provisions
contained in the Juvenile Justice Act read with Code of
Criminal Procedure.
8] In the result, we do not find any substance in the
petition. The petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rvjalit
