SB Cr. Misc. Petition No.276/2006 Anda Ram Vs. State & Anr. 1 S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No.276/2006 Anda Ram vs State of Rajasthan & Anr. DATE OF ORDER : - 10.7.2008 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.JR Choudhary, for the petitioner. Mr.VR Mehta, Public Prosecutor. Mr. JR Beniwal, for the respondent-complainant. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the trial court dated 21.12.2005 passed in Cr. Case No.108/2003 by which the petitioner's-complainant's application under Section 190 Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance for offence under Section 302 IPC was rejected by the trial court. Brief facts of the case are that according to the complainant in the incident dated 29.7.2003, the victim Rewta Ram suffered serious injuries, which was inflicted by the accused persons and because of that ribs of the victim piers in the lungs of the victim. The victim was admitted in the hospital and ultimately discharged from the hospital on 12.8.2003. The FIR No.96/2003 under Section 304, 323/34 SB Cr. Misc. Petition No.276/2006 Anda Ram Vs. State & Anr. 2 IPC was registered. The investigation was completed and challan was filed under above sections. However, the victim died on 20.8.2003 and before that a protest petition was filed by the complainant – victim himself for taking cognizance under Section 326 and 307 IPC. Since the victim Rewta Ram died on 20.8.2003, therefore, another report No.5/2003 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. was registered and postmortem of deceased Rewta Ram was got conducted. As per the complainant after investigation made in FIR No.5/2003, FR has been submitted for offence under Section 302 IPC, which according to the complainant was because of the influence of the accused persons. The present petitioner Anda Ram submitted protest petition for taking cognizance for offence under Section 302 IPC, which was rejected by the learned trial court vide order dated 21.12.2005. Therefore, this petition has been submitted by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 21.12.2005 and for taking cognizance for offence under Section 302 IPC. The postmortem report is as under : - SB Cr. Misc. Petition No.276/2006 Anda Ram Vs. State & Anr. 3 “In my opinion the cause of death is leakage of blood into the thoracic cavity from lung and pleura on its right side leading to collection of foul smelling blood and its contact leading to septicemia shock and death is septicemia shock.” In said investigation, the statement of doctor Ganpat Rai who conducted postmortem was also recorded and some quarries were replied by the doctor on 12.12.2003. The police submitted FR so far as offence under Section 302 IPC is concerned, on the basis of the statement of the doctor finding that death of victim was because of remaining blood in the body of the victim, which started giving foul smell and because of that poison spread in the body of the victim. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the victim suffered injury in the lungs from the accused and ultimately died because of that injury is proved from the medical report as well as from the postmortem report. It is submitted that all material collected by the investigating agency was sufficient for SB Cr. Misc. Petition No.276/2006 Anda Ram Vs. State & Anr. 4 framing charge for offence under Section 302 IPC against the accused. I considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent-accused. It appears that the trial court considered each and every piece of evidence produced before the court after investigation including the postmortem report and the statement of the doctor. The fact is not in dispute is that victim suffered injury on 29.7.2003 and was admitted in the hospital. He was discharged on 12.8.2003 and the victim died on 20.8.2003 and as per the statement of the doctor as well as as per opinion of the doctor in the postmortem report, there was blood in the cavities, which was giving foul smell and that blood became poisonous. It is true that if a person dies because of injury after any time, but having direct connection with the injury than the offender may be liable for the offence of murder, but that connection must be direct. In this case, for the injury of 29.7.2003 doctors themselves discharged the accused on 12.8.2003 then certainly, the doctors must have discharged the victim finding his condition for discharge. The victim died on SB Cr. Misc. Petition No.276/2006 Anda Ram Vs. State & Anr. 5 20.8.2003 and as per the statement of the doctor and as per the postmortem report, the blood was found in the body of the victim then there is reasonable possibility of happening something wrong during the period of treatment or it may be a case of negligence, which remain unexplained and that is how the blood remain in the cavity of the body of the victim and which was started giving foul smell and which become poisonous, which caused the death of the victim. In view of the situation, if the trial court reached to the conclusion on the basis of the evidence on record that the death of the victim cannot be directly connected with the injuries then this Court is of the view that no case is made out for interference by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. so as to set aside the order passed by the court below. In view of the above reasons, this petition is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.Goyal/-