LexINDU JAIN versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008) 14 S.C.R. 1137 '" f INDU JAIN A .. II. STATE. OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 1683 of 2008 and Ors) OCTOBER 23, 2008 8 [ALTAMAS KABIR AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.] ~ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.240, Framing of charges - Custodial death of accused in office of Lokayukta ~ Charges framed against officers of Lokayukta u/s 304 Part II c but dropped u/s. 330 /PC - Set aside by High Court- Direc~ tions issued to frame charges u/s. 323134 !PC - On appeal, held: It was established that deceased was asthmatic - De- spite that he was detained in wholly unhygienic conditions which triggered his asthmatic attack leading to .his death on D account of asphyxia - Injuries found on the body of deceased might have been caused during attempts at resuscitation when he was brought to Hospital in comatose condition - There- fore, prima facie case made out for framing of charges against accused persons u/s. 304 Part II and 330 and not u/s. 302 E /PC - Order of Sessions Judge framing charge u/s.304 Part II /PC restored -Also direction issued to frame charges uls. 330 /PC - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 304 Part II and 330. The officers of the Special Police Establishment (Lokayukta) arrested the Depufy Commissioner, Commer- F cial Tax for taking a bribe and was detained in the office of Lokayukta. The next day prior to 9 a.m., DC was found unconscious in the bathroom of the Office of Lokayukta and.was taken to the hospital for treatment. When he was brought to the hospital for treatment, his body neither had G any pulse nor respiration and recordable blood pressure ,;.. ;' and heart sound were also absent. Resuscitation mea- sures were undertaken and there was little response. At J 1.30 p.m., DC was declared dead. FIR was lodged. lnves- 1137 H 1138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R. A tigation was carried out. Post Mortem examination was 't ... conducted at 4.00 p.m. which revealed certain injuries on ii> the body including broken ribs and cause of death was shown to be asphyxia within six hours of the post mortem examination. Investigating agency filed charge sheet. The B Sessions Judge framed charges against the five accu?ed persons u/s 304 Part II IPC but dropped charge u/s. 330 IPC. Accused person filed criminal revision. The complain- ant-widow of deceased filed criminal revision challeng- ing the dropping of charges u/s. 330 IPC. High Court set c aside the charges framed by Sessions Judge and di- rected framing of charges u/s. 323/34 IPC. Hence the present appeal by the complainant, the State and the ac- cused persons. Partly allowing the appeal filed by the complainant D and the State and dismissing the appeal filed by the ac- cused, the Court ~· -- HELD: 1.1 It has been sufficiently established that the deceased was a patient of asthma .which could cause E asphyxia which was ultimately said to be the cause of his death. It is also clear that notwithstanding his serious res- piratory problem, the deceased was kept in a window- less room which was full of dust and cobwebs which are known allergens for triggering an asthma attack, which can be fatal, as in the instant case. The injuries found on F the body of the deceased may have been caused during attempts at resuscitation, but all the said circumstances can only be considered during a proper trial and riot on the basis of surmises at the time of framing charge where on the strength of the charge sheet only a prima facie G satisfaction about the commission of an offence has· to be arrived at by the trial court ..• Therefore, while rejecting r- .... the submissions that there were no materials on record to frame charge against the accused persons even un- .. der Section 323/34 IPC, it can be observed that on a prima " H facie view of the matter, there is ground to proceed against INDU JAIN v. STATE OF MADHYA 1139 PRADESH & ORS. ""' '( the accused p~rsons even under Section 304 Part II IPC. A It is agreed that the High Court had erred in quashing the charge framed against the accused persons under Sec- tion 304 Part II and observing that in view of the materials on record only a charge under Section 323 could be brought against the accused persons. [Para 31] (1152-D B to H) 1.2 The submission that charge under Section 302 IPC should also have been framed against the accused persons cannot be accepted as at this stage there is little to establish an intention on the pa
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.