1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.355/2009 (Smt. Gokerna Fulsingh Solanke .vrs. State of Maharashtra and others) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mr. N.S. Bhat, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. T.A. Mirza, APP for the respondent. .......... CORAM : A.P. LAVANDE & P.D. KODE, JJ DATED : JANUARY 28, 2010 1. Heard. 2. By the present petition, wife of one Fulsingh Akaram Solanke, who was convicted by Sessions Court, Amravati and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment for commission of offence of murder and the one who had died, has prayed for an order for directing CBI enquiry and granting compensation. 3. The petition has been founded on the grievance that on 18.7.2009 the deceased was allotted the work of brooming the land adjacent to the barracks to the jail. Jail Authorities further directed deceased and two other convicts to uproot the grass on the land with the help of plough. They had further directed the said 2 two other convicts to pull the plough from the front side and directed the deceased to stand on the said equipment at the back side. It is the contention of the petitioner that while doing so, a big stone in the soil had got collided with the shoe of the plough and the equipment was lifted upwards towards the deceased and he had sustained injuries over the genitals. The deceased had died on the spot. The post-mortem was effected on the same day but no definite opinion regarding the cause of the said death was given. The petitioner has alleged that jail authorities has managed the Medical Officer of the General Hospital and the police department and procured the inquest panchanama and the post-mortem without showing the correct findings. It is her case that since investigation was not properly done, CBI inquiry deserves to be ordered in the matter. 4. The affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 discloses that at the time of brooming work in premises of yard no.3 barrack no.7 the deceased complained of the chest pain he was taken to the prison hospital and after examination was found to be in critical condition and was referred to General Hospital at Amravati for proper treatment but he died at the said hospital. The same further discloses that intimation of the same was given to his relatives telegraphically and Walgaon Police Station and death was also reported to Frezapura Police Station and Sub- Divisional Magistrate for further investigation. 3 5. It further discloses the events happened thereafter including drawing of inquest panchanama by Sub Divisional Magistrate in presence of panchas and petitioner and other relatives as stated in the said reply being present at the said time. Significantly enough the same also discloses that at the time of inquest panchanama no injury or injury marks as claimed by the petitioner were noticed either by Sub Divisional Magistrate, panchas and relatives of the deceased including petitioner. It also discloses that none of the relatives of the deceased had then made any complaint to Sub Divisional Magistrate. The proceedings of inquest panchanama were recorded video-graphically and copy of the same was also sent to National Human Rights Commission. In the said reply the relevant allegations that deceased was given the work or that during the same he was injured, as alleged by the petitioner, have been denied. It also reveals that opinion of doctor regarding final cause of death was awaited from General Hospital, Amravati. Amongst other it also reveals that the report submitted by Sub Divisional Magistrate after enquiry reveals the prisoner having died of heart attack. 6. The further affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent no.2 reveals that final opinion received from the autopsy surgeon is to the effect that in his opinion as per post-mortem report and chemical analysis report the probable cause of death is “Pulmonary Oedema”. 7. Having regard to the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that there exists absolutely no 4 material in support of the petitioner’s allegations of the deceased being the given work as alleged and having suffered alleged injuries resulting in his death. On the contrary the material in affidavit-in-reply reveals the deceased having succumbed to the death due to “Pulmonary Oedema”. In view of the same we find no merit in the petition and hence dismiss the same. 8. The fees of Advocate Mr. N.S. Bhat, who has been appointed to appear for the petitioner, are quantified at Rs.750/-. JUDGE JUDGE Gulande