Allowed

Rahul v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC4 Mar 2024CRMPM/203/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought anticipatory bail in an FIR alleging assault with sharp-edged weapons and added Section 307 IPC based on a 'dangerous to life' injury opinion. Holding the medical opinion alone did not make out Section 307 and no recovery or witness intimidation existed, the court allowed the petitions.

What the court decided

AI extract

Rahul Vs State of Hp — Anticipatory Bail | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Cr.MPM Nos. 20 Reserved on: 28 Date of Decisio	3, 204, 205, 206 .02.2024 n: 04.03.2024	& 207 of 2024
1. Cr.MPM No.203 of 2024 Rahul		....Petitioner
	Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh		....Respondent
2. Cr.MPM No.204 of 2024
Rakesh Kumar		....Petitioner
	Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh		....Respondent
3. Cr.MPM No.205 of 2024 Shubham Kumar		....Petitioner
	Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh		....Respondent
4. Cr.MPM No.206 of 2024
Robin Singh		....Petitioner
	Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh		....Respondent
5. Cr.MPM No.207 of 2024
Satwinder Singh	Versus	....Petitioner
State of Himachal Pradesh		....Respondent
Coram
Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kaint	hla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting	? No

¶3

Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

¶4

¶5

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shriyek Sharda, Advocate in all the petitions. For Respondent/State : Mr Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General in all the petitions with ASI Jamal Din, IO PS Sadar, Una, H.P.

¶6

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

¶7

Informant Deepak Kumar made a statement under

¶8

Section 154 of Cr.P.C. before the Police stating that he, Sandeepan Kumar (injured victim), Anav Kumar, Rahul and Aman had visited Ekta Dhaba on 08.10.2023 in a vehicle bearing registration No. HP-

¶9

20C-3844 for taking food. They went to Suvidha Palace from Ekta Dhaba. Robi told Sandeepan telephonically that his son was being intimidated by the school children and outsiders. Robi revealed that he was standing near Suvidha Palace and that Sandeepan should visit the spot. The informant party went to Suvidha Palace, where Sandeepan and Robi talked to each other. Accused Shubham also came to the spot. Sandeepan boarded the vehicle; however, Robi dragged him out of the vehicle and started abusing him. Robi and Shubham attacked the informant party with sharp-edged weapons. Informant Deepak Kumar, Sandeepan, Rahul, Anav and Aman sustained injuries. Robi and Shubham threatened to kill the members

¶10

¶11

of the informant party. The police registered the FIR and conducted

¶12

the investigation.

¶13

The accused persons filed the present petitions for seeking pre-arrest bail. It was asserted that the petitioner had no concern with the commission of the offences and they were falsely implicated. The informant and other persons visited the house of the bail petitioners and asked them to come outside the house. There was no instigation on the part of the petitioners. The FIR was lodged belatedly. The informant was taken to Government Hospital Una, where it was found that the informant and his friends were under the influence of liquor. The informant and other persons were referred to PGIMER, Chandigarh; however, they visited a private hospital in Jalandhar. The informant is discharging his duties as a driver in HRTC and other persons are also continuing with their routine affairs. The petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated. They would abide by all the terms and conditions, which may be imposed by the Court. Hence, the petition.

¶14

The Police filed a status report reproducing the contents of the FIR. It was asserted that Sandeepan Kumar was treated at AIIMS Sanjivani Hospital, Jalandhar. Rahul Thakur, Aman, Deepak Kumar and Anav had sustained simple injuries. The Medical Officer

¶15

¶16

issued the final opinion after going through the treatment summary of Sandeepan stating that the nature of the injury was dangerous to life. Robin produced Darat, which was seized by the Police. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioners. As per the record, FIR No. 110 of 2022 and FIR No. 245 of 2022 were registered against Satwinder. FIR No.239 of 2021, FIR No. 15 of 2022 and FIR No. 25 of 2022 were registered against Rakesh Kumar. FIR No. FIR No. 340 of 2022 and FIR No.1 of 2023 were registered against Robin Singh. No FIR was registered against Rahul.

¶17

I have heard Mr. Shriyek Sharda, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent-State.

¶18

Mr. Shriyek Sharda, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated. The petitioners were also injured in the incident and the matter was reported to the police belatedly. The victim was referred to PGIMER, Chandigarh but he went to the private hospital. The material on record does not show the commission of the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC; hence, he prayed that the present petitions be allowed and the petitioners be released on bail.

¶19

¶20

Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for

¶21

the respondent/State submitted that the Medical Officer had issued a final opinion that the nature of injury sustained by the victim was dangerous to life. The use of the Darat clearly shows that the petitioners intended to cause the death of the victim-Sandeepan. A prima facie case is made out against the petitioners for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC; therefore, he prayed that the present petitions be dismissed.

¶22

I have given considerable thought to the submissions at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

¶23

It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2019 (9) SCC 24 that the power of pre-arrest is extraordinary and should be exercised sparingly. It was observed:

¶24

“67. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but several other purposes. Power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary power and the same has to be exercised sparingly. The privilege of pre-arrest bail should be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred upon the court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation; the possibility of the applicant

¶25

¶26

fleeing justice and other factors to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Grant of anticipatory bail to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence and hence, the court must be circumspect while exercising such power for the grant of anticipatory bail. Anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of rule and it has to be granted only when the court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extraordinary remedy.”

¶27

The status report mentions that a Darat, which was used during the incident was produced by Robin. It further mentions that Rahul Thakur, Deepak Kumar and Aman had sustained simple injuries. The police have not added Section 324 of IPC as no incised wound was found. The absence of any injury caused by a sharp-edged weapon does not corroborate the prosecution's version that the petitioners had used a sharp-edged weapon. Even the Medico Legal Certificate (MLC) of the victim-Sandeepan shows that he had suffered injuries from a blunt weapon. Therefore, in these circumstances, the prosecution version that the Darat was used during the incident has not been prima facie established.

¶28

The police have added Section 307 of IPC based on the opinion of the Medical Officer that the nature of the injury is dangerous in life. It was laid down by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Atma Singh vs. State of Punjab 1980 Crim. L.J. 1220 that IPC

¶29

¶30

recognizes only four kinds of injuries — simple, grievous, injuries inflicted with intent to commit murder and injuries sufficient to cause death. No provision in the IPC recognizes injury dangerous to life or which endangers life as a separate category. The injury endangering the life falls within Section 320(8) of IPC and such an injury is grievous. It was observed:-

¶31

“10. When the doctor is required to carry out a medico-legal examination of the injury suffered in a criminal assault, he is required to examine the injury from two standpoints : (1) for the purpose of opining the kind of weapon used to inflict the injury in question and, (2ndly) to form an opinion regarding the degree of seriousness of the injury in order to enable to see as to what offence has the accused committed by inflicting the injury in question. The Indian Penal Code recognises from the standpoint of seriousness only four types of injuries, (1) simple injuries; (2) grievous (3) injuries of the kind inflicted with intent to commit murder described in clauses 'Firstly' and '2ndly' of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, (4) injury sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature envisaged by clause Thirdly' of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. There is no provision in the Indian Penal Code, which envisages or refers to an injury described as 'dangerous to life'. The medicolegal examination of an injured person is intended to enable the Investigating Agency and the Court to find out the nature of the offence and, therefore, the doctor examining an injured person has to opine that the injury in question is one or the other of the type recognised in the Indian Penal Code for the purposes of a given offence. When a doctor describes an injury as 'dangerous to life' one has to see what had the doctor intended to convey thereby. Is one to hold that since the injury has not been described by the doctor as one which 'endangered life', so the concerned injury cannot be held to be grievous on

¶32

¶33

the specious ground that an injury described as 'dangerous to life' is not as serious an injury which 'endangers life'.

¶34

It appears that the doctors who had been conducting the medico-legal examinations have been using the term 'dangerous to life' as synonymous with an injury, which 'endangers life'. Even the Courts at times have considered an injury described as dangerous to life as an injury envisaged in clause 'Eighthly of Sec. 320 of the Indian Penal Code. In this regard reference can be made to Mahamed Rafi v. Emperor, AIR 1930 Lah 305 : (31 Cri LJ 77) . In that case, the injury was on the right side of the neck about 2½" x -" in dimension inflicted with a sharp-edged weapon. The doctor had, in fact in that case deposed that there was every possibility of the deceased surviving but for the wound becoming septic apparently as a result of it being pressed with hands and bandaged with dirty cloth in the initial stages before the deceased was taken to the hospital. The Court held that though a finding that the appellant knew that his act was likely to cause death, was not justified but at the same time, a wound on the neck must at least be considered to be 'dangerous to life' within the meaning of Clause (8), Section 320, Indian Penal Code, and therefore, grievous'.

¶35

Palekar, J., too in Jai Narain Mishra v. State of Bihar, 1972 Cr App R 19 : (1972 Cri LJ 469) (SC) , held, a penetrating wound 1½ x ½ x chest wall deep on the right side of the chest caused with a bhala and described as 'dangerous to life', as grievous injury and in the latter part of paragraph 11 called this injury as one endangering life.

¶36

The expression 'dangerous' is an adjective and the expression 'endanger' is a verb. An injury, which can put life in immediate danger of death would be an injury which can be termed as 'dangerous to life' and, therefore, when a doctor describes an injury as 'dangerous to life', he means an injury, which endangers life in terms of clause (8) of Section 320, Indian Penal Code, for, it describes the injury 'dangerous to life' only for the purpose of the said clause. He instead of using the expression that this was an injury which 'endangered life'

¶37

¶38

described it as that the injury was 'dangerous to life', meaning both times the same thing.

¶39

K. S. Tiwana, J. in Crl. Appeal No. 1489 of 1974, (Sukhdev Singh v. The State of Punjab) , decided on January 18, 1979 , was concerned with the statement of a doctor who had merely externally examined the injury and had opined it to be dangerous to life. The doctor who had performed the operation had not preferred any opinion. The injury was a penetrating wound with clean-cut margins of the size of 1¼" x ½" on the left side of the chest, 5" below the nipple. The depth of the wound was not measured by the doctor who had given the opinion. In this case, the learned Judge did not accept the opinion of the doctor that the injury was dangerous to life on the ground that he was not qualified to say so merely by looking at the injury and the one who had performed the operation and had seen the damage had not given any such opinion. The learned Judge did not go into the question that an injury described as dangerous to life in no case could be considered a grievous injury.

¶40

S. S. Dewan, J., in Crl. Appeal No. 1007 of 1975 (Harbans Singh v. The State of Punjab) decided on February 8, 1979 , observed as did S. C. Mital, J., in Jagrup Singh's case (1973 Chand LR (Cri) 253) (Punj) that the term 'dangerous to life' is milder than the expression 'endangers life'. He merely followed his earlier decision holding that an injury described as dangerous to life cannot be considered grievous.

¶41

A. S. Bains, J., in Crl. Appeal No. 355 of 1976, (Surjit Singh v. The State of Punjab) , merely followed the decision in Jagrup Singh's case (1973 Chand LR (Cri) 253) (Punj) and held that injury described as 'dangerous to life' would not satisfy the requirement of clause (8) of Section 320, Indian Penal Code and would not be a grievous injury. In all these decisions, with respect, there is no discussion in depth.

¶42

We are of the view that the Court is not absolved of the responsibility while deciding a criminal case to form its conclusion regarding the nature of the injury, the Expert's opinion notwithstanding. The Court has to see the nature and

¶43

¶44

dimension of the injury, its location and the damage that it has caused. Even when an injury is described as to be one which endangers the life the court has to apply its mind and form its own opinion in regard to the nature of the injury, having regard to the factors that should weigh with the Court, already mentioned. We are also firmly of the view that wherever a doctor describes an injury as 'dangerous to life’ and the nature of the injuries is such which could merit such a conclusion then such an injury has to be treated as 'grievous hurt' of the description mentioned in the first portion of clause (8) of Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code .” (Emphasis supplied)

¶45

Therefore, prima facie, the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC is not made out based on the medical opinion that the injuries were dangerous to life. The FIR was registered on 09.10.2023. The police have not asserted that petitioners had intimidated any witnesses since the registration of the FIR or had done any act of influencing the investigation. Therefore, in these circumstances, there is no justification for detaining the petitioners in custody. Hence, the present petitions are allowed and the order dated 13.02.2024 is made absolute.

¶46

(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge

¶47

4^th March, 2024 (Saurav pathania)

Rahul v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Rahul v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jai Chand Thakur Vs State of Hp

Soma Devi Vs State of Hp

Satnam Singh Vs State of H P

Tahir Khan Vs State of Hp

Rahul Vs State of Hp

Puran Singh Vs State of Hp