Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. vs The State
2010 Latest Caselaw 3678 Del

              HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                             Crl. Rev. P. 13/2010

                                   Date of Decision: 09.8.2010


Sanjeev Kumar & Anr.                              ...     Petitioners

                               Through: Mr. Sunil Mittal, Advocate

                          Versus
The State                                         ...     Respondent
                               Through: Mr. Naveen Sharma, Adv.


CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.L. BHAYANA

1.     Whether reporters of local paper may be allowed to
       see the judgment?                       Yes
2.     To be referred to the reporter or not?  Yes
3.     Whether the judgment should be referred in the
       Digest?                            Yes

       S.L. Bhayana, J.

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners u/s

397/401 Cr.P.C. read with section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer that the

order dated 30.9.2009 (Order on Charge) and 17.11.2009 (framing of

Charge) whereby the learned trial Court has framed Charge against

the petitioners under section 302/34 IPC may be set aside and quashed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that all the

petitioners are liable to be discharged in this case as there is no prima

facie case made out against the petitioners for framing of Charge u/s

302/34 IPC. He has further submitted that on 3.10.2007 the mother of the

deceased Sapna Goel along with other near relatives had given an

application in writing to the ACP, Tilak Nagar, Delhi that the post

mortem on the dead body of her daughter Sapna Goel be waived and

the dead body be handed over to them for cremation. He further stated

that it is mentioned in the application that deceased Sapna Goel was

happy in her matrimonial home and there was no complaint against the

accused persons. So keeping in view the application moved by her

mother and other relatives no case is made out against the accused

persons. He has further submitted that Dr. L.C. Gupta who has

conducted the post mortem is a tainted doctor and some enquiries

were pending against him so no reliance can be placed on the report of

the post mortem of the said doctor. He has further submitted that

learned trial Court had wrongly framed Charge and the petitioners are

liable to be discharged.

3. On the other hand learned counsel for the State stated that there is

sufficient material on record for framing of Charge against the

petitioners and the learned trial Court has rightly framed Charge

against all the accused persons on the basis of statement recorded by

the police of the mother of the deceased and various other near

relatives who have made serious allegations against all the petitioners

having killed the deceased.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Although the mother of the deceased Sapna Goel had moved an

application before ACP that the post mortem on the dead body of her

daughter be waived but it was only because of the fact that she and

other near relatives were present at the house of the accused persons

and when the I.O S.I. Dharmpal arrived there the accused persons had

told her mother and the other relatives and also the police officer that

Sapna Goel was drying cloths on the roof of the house and due to

giddiness she fell down from the roof and died. Thereafter at the

instance of the accused persons an application was moved in writing to

ACP, Tilak Nagar, Delhi, for waiving of post mortem of deceased. All

the accused persons also moved a similar application to the police for

waiving of post mortem giving the same story in the application. S.I

Dharmpal reached the spot when the accused persons were about to

take the dead body of the deceased for cremation. S.I Dharampal

reached the spot on the basis of a DD No. 21A dated 3.10.2009 wherein

somebody had informed the police that a lady has died on account of

hanging. On the receipt of this DD, SI Dharampal reached the spot but

the S.I. refused to waive of the post mortem and thereafter post mortem

was got conducted by Dr. L.C. Gupta on the following day at 4.10 p.m

and Dr. L.C. Gupta has given his opinion regarding cause of death as

under:-

"Death is asphyxia as a result of sustained and forceful pressure over the neck with help of ligature which is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature, postmortem finding are consistent assault prior to death. All injuries are antemortem and possibility of homicide cannot be ruled out"

Dr. L.C. Gupta has given a clear finding in the post mortem report that

all the injuries are ante mortem in nature and homicide cannot be ruled

out. So from the findings of doctor in the post mortem report it is clear

that this is a case of homicide and the injuries on the dead body are

ante mortem in nature and possibility of homicide cannot be ruled out.

The arguments of the learned counsel for the accused cannot be

accepted that there are some allegations against doctor and some

enquiry is pending. Post mortem report cannot be rejected merely on

this ground. There is a prima facie case made out against the

petitioners which is supported by medical evidence and also the

statement of witnesses recorded by the police on 17.10.2007. The

mother of the deceased gave statement to the police leveling serious

allegations against all the accused persons. Similarly statements of

other witnesses have also been recorded by the police in which they

have leveled serious allegations against the accused persons. Police

also recorded statement of one Tara Chand Gupta, the Nana of the

deceased under section 161 Cr.P.C. He told to the police in his

statement that on 2.10.2007 he had received a telephone call from

Sapna Goel at about 11 p.m. wherein she wanted to meet him on the

following day. He further submitted that he wanted to know the reasons

from Sapna Goel but she told him that her Nanand namely Lata and her

husband Sanjeev were present in the house so she will told everything

on the day when they will meet and the telephone was dis-connected.

The police also recorded statement of Priyansi, minor daughter of the

deceased under section 161 Cr.P.C. who told the police that on the date

of incident her Bua Lata and Sajeev were present in the house and her

Bua had made her ready to go to the school when she asked Bua about

the well being of her mother she told that she was sleeping as she was

not well. Presence of petitioners Lata and Sanjeev has been confirmed

by this witness Priyanshi. The police also took 42 photographs of the

deceased at the time of the post mortem and these photographs also

show the presence of injuries on her neck etc.

6. After going through the statements of the witnesses and the post

mortem report, I am satisfied that learned trial Court has rightly framed

Charge against the petitioners under section 302/201/34 IPC.

7. There is no merit in the revision petition

8. Dismissed.

August        09, 2010                          S.L. BHAYANA. J
kb