Delhi High Court
Sumit @ Kala vs State on 7 July, 2020
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: 02nd July, 2020
Decided on : 07th July, 2020
+ BAIL APPLN. 396/2020
SUMIT @ KALA ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.Ramesh Gupta, Sr Advocate
with Mr.Ashish Verma, Advocate.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.Amit Ahlawat, APP for the
State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA
YOGESH KHANNA, J. (Through Video Conferencing)
1. This petition is filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred as the 'Cr P C) for regular bail in FIR
No.392/2019 registered at police station Bawana, Delhi for the offences
punishable under Section 304/506/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860
(hereinafter referred as the 'IPC) to the petitioner/applicant.
2. Primarily, the learned senior counsel for the applicant urges the
two of the co-accused namely Vikas and Parveen have since been granted
bail in this case, hence parity is sought qua accused Sumit.
3. The facts alleged are in the intervening night of 08 th and 09th of
August, 2019 at about 12.30 - 01.00 AM, a loud voice was coming from
in front of the house of complainant-Bijender. His brother Jaipal Singh
informed him about a quarrel outside, with their brother Anil. He along
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAPIL
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.07.2020 14:16
with his brother and father came in the Gali and saw Pawan and one of
his associate, i.e. accused Sumit were beating Anil and were giving fist
blows on the chest of Anil. Then Pawan and his friend took out a
revolver from their vehicle and threatened them. He and his brother
requested Pawan and Sumit with folded hands, but they went on giving
filthy abuses and even called their associates namely Vikas and Parveen
on phone. As they all were abusing, extending threats, the complainant
requested them Anil is medically not well and would not be able to bear
the beatings, but they continued abusing and threats. As the people from
the locality started pouring in, the accused person left the spot. After
some time, injured Anil - brother of the complainant had some chest pain
and was taken to MV Hospital, Pooth Khurd from where he was referred
to Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital, Rohini, Delhi and then to Saroj
Hospital where he was declared brought dead.
4. The Postmortem report of deceased Anil notes the following
external injures:-
"1. Contusion, reddish in color, 16 cm x 6 cm, vertically aligned,
present over the lower part of back of chest and extending to the upper
part of back of abdomen, from 2 cm to the left of middle upto 4 cm
right of midline. On dissection, extravasations of blood present in the
subcutaneous tissues and muscles of back beneath and surrounding the
injury.
2. Contusion, reddiah in color, 12 cm x 3 cm vertically aligned,
present over we upper and middle part of tack of abdomen 5 cm to the
right of midline On dissection, extravasations of blood present in the
subcutaneous tissues and muscles of back beneath and surrounding the
injury."
5. The opinion qua his death is as under:-
"Death was due to coronary artery blockage caused by injury no 1. A1
injuries were ante-mortem, fresh before death, caused by blunt force
and injury no.1 along with the internal injuries was sufficient/to cause
death in the ordinary course of nature. Viscera and tissues have been
preserved at the request of the I.O."
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAPIL
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.07.2020 14:16
6. It is the submission of the learned senior counsel for the applicant
firstly there was no intention to cause death of Anil as the accused were
never aware about his medical condition; as his medical condition was
told to accused only on arrival of co-accused Vikas and Parveen. Further,
it is also argued the cause of death was 100% artery blockage which
cannot simply be a result of blows on the chest and rather the postmortem
report show injuries on the back of chest and abdomen and not in the
front of chest. Lastly, it was argued no TIP was conducted.
7. Reference was also made to the following findings in the
postmortem report of the deceased:-
"X. Internal Examination
a. and b. xxx
c. Chest:- ........ Coronary ostia were patent. 100% blockage present in
the left anterior descending artery about 1 cm from origin. About 20% of
the blockage was with atherosclerotic patch and rest of the blockage was
with fresh thrombus. Patency, present at places in rest of the various
segments of the coronary tree.
Diaphragm was intact."
8. I have examined the statement of the witnesses. All of them in one
voice say both accused Pawan and accused Sumit were quarrelling and
giving fist blows on the chest of Anil and that co-accused Vikas and
Parveen came later when the beating was over, hence, no parity can be
drawn from the role of accused Vikas and Parveen to that of accused
Sumit.
9. Rather, the applicant was at the spot taking active part in the
beating of Anil at the time of incident. Though argument is made viz an
artery cannot be blocked 100% in a day only due to beating, per general
medical record filed, hence, injury No.1 cannot be the basis of 100%
blockage of artery of the deceased, however, the para referred to in the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAPIL
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.07.2020 14:16
postmortem report of deceased and relied upon by the learned senior
counsel clearly mention about 20% of the blockage was with
atherosclerotic patch, but whereas 80% of the blockage was with fresh
thrombus. Thus, the artery had only 20% blockage, but 80% was because
of injury No.1 caused by the accused person.
10. Here, I would also like to refer to a subsequent opinion
No.060/2020 dated 22.06.2020 qua the postmortem report No.752/2019
dated 09.08.2019 of Dr.Vijay Dhankar, MD (Forensic Medicine),
Specialist and HOD and it read:
"The blunt force injuries as mentioned in the PM report, were on an
area of chest directly over the position of heart. Such injuries can lead
to rupture of the atherosclerotic plaque already present in the coronary
arteries which then leads to thrombus formation, total occlusion of the
lumen of the artery and causing sudden death.
With the presence of these injuries on the body, it can be concluded
that the 80% blockage by thrombus was caused by the injuries
mentioned in the PM report. These injuries were the cause of death of
the deceased by causing thrombus formation in the coronary arterial
branch."
11. The above opinion leaves us no doubt that prima facie the cause
of death was injury No.1 caused by the accused person as stated above, as
such the role of accused cannot be segregated from the accused Pawan, at
this stage. The test identification parade, primarily, is conducted only to
verify if the investigation is going in right direction and admittedly
accused Sumit was a friend of accused Pawan and that co-accused
Pawan only had led the Investigating Officer apprehend Sumit, hence at
this stage, no benefit on such count can also be given to the accused for
grant of bail. The regular bail application deserves dismissal, hence
dismissed.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAPIL
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.07.2020 14:16
12. Copy of this order be sent electronically to the learned Trial Court
and the petitioner through the Jail Superintendent for information
Crl.M.(Bail) No.6393/2020
13. List for hearing on 31.07.2020.
YOGESH KHANNA, J.
JULY 07, 2020
M
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAPIL
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.07.2020 14:16
