Parveen Gore Bittu vs State
1993 Latest Caselaw 233 Del

JUDGMENT

Sat Pal, J.

(1) These two petitions have been filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure for release of the petitioners on bail. Cr. M(M)247/93 has been filed by accused Maninder Singh @ Picky and Crl. M(M)339/93 has been filed by accused Praveen Gore @ Bittu. Since both the petitioners were arrested in connection with the same case Fir No. 292dated 10/11/1992 P.S. Sarai Rohilla, I am disposing of both the petitions by a common order.

(2) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the abovementionedFIR. was registered at the instance of one Rajesh Kumar. According to the said complainant, on 10/11/1992 he and other members of Ekta Cricket Club were playing cricket in Gymkhana Ground, New Delhi when they were stopped by boys of Inborn Cricketers Club. At about 12.00 noon,the complainant went to the office of I.O.W. for drinking water from the tap where he exchanged some hot words with the brother of accused Maninder Singh. When he went back to the ground, Maninder's brother called the boys of Inborn Cricketers Club and pointing towards complainant said that he quarreled with him. At this both the petitioners along with co-accused Manjit and Jaipal came there and exhorted "catch bold of him".It is alleged that accused Jaipal who was holding a wicket in his hand gave one blow on the head of the complainant and accused Praveen Gore who was carrying bat also beat the complainant. On seeing the complainant being beaten, Alok Kumar (deceased) who belonged to the team of the complainant came to rescue him. Then accused Manjit and Maninder [email protected] Picky said that he should also be beaten. It is further alleged that Manjit,Picky (Maninder Singh) and Bittu (Parveen Gore) who were parrying int heir hands wicket and bat started beating Alok. Meanwhile. the complainant started bleeding in his head. I Thereafter I accused Jaipal started beating Alok Kumar who fell down unconscious' Alok was taken tor.L.M.L. Hospital and the complainant also reached the hospital. On11.11.92 Alok succumbed to his injury.

(3) As per M.L.C., the injury on the person of the complainant was simple caused with a blunt object. The post-mortem report of the deceased Alok indicates that "the scalp showed massive effusion and clotted blood all over skull............brain also showed massive sub-dural clot all over the brain surface." The cause of death in terms of the said report is :-

"THE injury over skull anti-mortem caused by blunt object.Death in this case in my opinion is due to coma resulting from head injury."

(4) Mr. Grover the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused Maninder Singh @ Picky drew my attention to the statement of complainant dated 10/11/1992 and his supplementary statement of the same date and also to the statements of the two other eye witnesses,namely, vinod Kumar and Ashok Kumar. Referring to these statements,he submitted that these statements show that the accused Maninder Singh tried to hit the deceased with his wicket but the same could not hit him.He further submitted that the Medical Examination of the complainant shows that the injury on his body was simple. He also referred to the postmortem report of the deceased and submitted that there was only one injury on the head and since there was no enimity between the petitioner and the deceased, it could be at the most a case under Section 304 Part-II but could not be a case under Section 302 IPC. In support of his submissions, the learned Counsel placed reliance in the case of Randhir Singh v.State of Punjab. ; Hari Ram v. State of Haryana, , and Gulab Singh v. Slate of Rajasthan, 1975 Crl. L.J. 695.

(5) As regards the allegation of exhortation made by the complainant against accused Maninder Singh, the learned Counsel submitted that this was a false allegation as the same has not been corroborated by the other two eye witnesses. He further contended that the evidence of exhortation was a weak piece of evidence and no conviction can be recorded on such evidence. In support of this contention he placed reliance on two Supreme Court judgments reported in the case of Jainul Haque v. State of Bihar, and Dajya Moshya Bhil v. State of Maharashtra, Air 1984SC 171.

(6) Lastly, the learned Counsel submitted that the petitioner was a well known cricketer and has been married recently and is on interim bail at present and as such the petitioner should be released on regularbail.

(7) Mr. Khan. the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused Parveen Gore @ Bittu reiterated the submissions made by Mr. Grover, the learned Counsel for the accused Maninder Singh. He further submitted that the post-mortem report does not indicate that the injury inflicted on the deceased was sufficient to cause death. He also submitted that there was no dispute prior to the incident and as per allegations, the appearance of Alok Kumar (deceased) on the scene was not known to the accusad before his arrival. Further according to the learned Counsel, there was no intention on the part of the accused to murder Alok Kumar. He also submitted that there was single injury on the body of the deceased. In view of thesesubmissions, he contended that no case is made out against the petitioners under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and at the most it could be a case under Section 304 Part-11 IPC. in support of his contention, he placed reliance on two judgments reported in the case of Gurmail Singh v. State of Punjab, 1982Crl. L.J. 1946 and Tholan v. State of Tamil Nadu. .

(8) Mr. Sharma. the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State in the case of Maninder Singh submitted that before the deceased appeared on the scene, the enmity between the group to which he belonged and the other group to which the accused belonged had come on the surface.He also submitted that as per the statement of the complainant, accused Maninder (Picky), accused Manjit. and accused Bittu started beating the deceased with the wickets and bats which they were carrying in their hands.He also submitted that the post-mortem report does not indicate that there was only one injury it showed that there were injuries on the head because there was massive effusion and clotted blood all over the skullHe, therefore, submitted that keeping in view the gravity of the offence,petitioner is not entitled to bail.

(9) Mr. Sawhney, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State in the case of Parveen Gore @ Bittu submitted that the said accused had reinforced the blow with tile bat on the vital part of the body of thedeceased i.e. head and the cause of the death was the head injury as stated in the post mortem report. He, therefore, submitted that it was a clear case under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and as such the petitioner was not entitled tobail.

(10) The learned Counsel also drew my attention to Dd No. 14-Adated 28.12.92 and Dd No. 16-A dated 3/01/1993 recorded at Police Station Sarai Rohilla, at the instance of complainant Rajesh Kumar.In Dd No. 14-A, it has been alleged that 3/4 Sikh boys met the complainant on 28.12.92 and told him that in case the complainant created any hinderance in the bail application in the above mentioned case, he will be taught a lesson and they also told him that he should inform his other companions also about this. In DDNo. 16-A., it has been stated by the complainant that at about 3.00 Pm on 3/01/1993 he was standing outside his house when 3/4 Sikh boys told him that the bail application was fixed for the next day and in case he tried to create any hinderance or briefed any advocate, it will not be good for him and after giving these threats those boys went in a car though he could not note down the number of the Car. I may point out here that Shri Amardeep Sehgal, SI. PS. Sarai Rohilla, who is the I.O. in this case was present in the Court, in reply to specific question from me as to whether any action was taken on thesereports, submitted that since the names and particulars of the said Sikh boys were not given, no further action was taken on these reports.

(11) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the facts of the case and have perused the statements of the three alleged eve witnesses from these statements it if clear that when the deceased Alok Kumar who belonged to the team of the complainant Rajesh Kumar came to rescuehim, the petitioners and the other accused were beating the complainant with bat/wicket. All the three said witnesses have also stated that accused Manjit and Parveen Gore had hit the head of the deceased with their bats.In his supplementary statement, the complainant has also alleged that Manjit and Parveen Gore intentionally hit Alok with intent to murder him.

(12) From the post-mortem report, I find that the cause of the death was due to coma resulting from head injury. The said report further shows that there was massive effusion and clotted blood all over the skull and brain also showed massive sub-dural clot all over the brain surface. In view of these facts mentioned in the post-mortem report, I would not express any opinion at this stage as to whether the offence alleged to have been committed in the present case falls under Section 302 Indian Penal Code or 304Part-11 IPC. However, in view of the allegations made against the Parveen Gore by all the three eye witnesses that he Along with Manjit had hit the head of the deceased with a bat and the cause of the death is also as a result of head injury, I am of the view that the petitioner Parveen Gore @ Bittu is not entitled to bail at this stage, particularly when the doctor who conducted the post mortem is yet to be examined. Accordingly his bail petition is dismissed.

(13) As regards the petition of Maninder Singh @ Picky, two eyewitnesses, namely, Vinod Kumar and Ashok Kumar have stated in their statement that he tried to hit the deceased with his wicket but the same could not hit him and from these statements it is also not clear which part of the body of the deceased he tried to hit. The complainant though in his initial statement had named the petitioner also as one of the three persons who started heating Alok Kumar (deceased) but in his supplementary statement recorded on the same date, he made it clear, that accused Maninder Singh had made only an effort to hit Alok with a wicket. He has also not mentioned as to which part of the body he tried to hit the deceased.Further as regards the exhortation, as per the statement of the eye witnesses Vinod Kumar and Ashok Kumar it was Jaipal who first hit on the hips ofAlok Kumar with the wicket and then exhorted that he be finished. The complainant has, however, mentioned that Manjeet and Picky (ManinderSingh) had said that Alok Kumar should be beaten. The exhortation assigned to Maninder Singh is only of beating and not of finishing thedeceased.

(14) In view of the facts mentioned in the preceding paragraph, I was inclined to pass an order for release of accused Maninder Singh on bail.However, in view of the two complaints lodged by the complainant Rajesh Kumar (who is an eve witness) mentioned in Dd No. 14-A, dated 28thDec. 1992 and Dd No. 16-A dated 3rd Jan, 1993 I am not passing the order for release of the said accused on regular bail till the investigation in respect of these two complaints is completed by the Police. As statedearlier, the I.O , submitted that no action was taken on these complaints.I am. however, of the opinion that 1.0. should have investigated the matter on receipt of the complaints. I, therefore, direct the S.H.O.. P.S. Sarai Rohilla to investigate the matter alleged in these two complaints and are port thereof be submitted to his Court within four weeks. Accordingly.the petition pertaining to accused Maninder Singh @ Picky is adjourned to 3rd May, 1993. In the meanwhile, the interim bail granted to the accused by the Sessions Court is extended till the next date of hearing onthe same terms and conditions.

(15) In the result Crl. M(M) 339/93 filed by Parveen Gore @ Bittu is dismissed and Crl. M(M) 247/93 filed by Maninder Singh @ Picky is adjourned to 3/05/1993.

(16) The observations given by me hereinabove will have no bearing on the merits of the case.

(17) A copy of this order be sent to S.H.O., P.S. Sarai Rohilla forcompliance.