Rajiv Thapar VS Madan Lal Kapoor

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(D.K. Jain and Jagdish Singh Khehar JJ.)
Rajiv Thapar & Ors. — Appellants
versus
Madan Lal Kapoor — Respondent
Criminal appeal no. 174 of 2013
(Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 4883 of 2008)
Decided on : 23-1-2013

Important Points

IMPORTANT PIOINT
Exercise of power u/s 482, Cr.P.C. discussed.

Subject

Criminal Law - DEATH IN CUSTODY

Act Referred

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.482, S.498(a), S.304(b)

Headnote

(a) Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – Inherent powers – High Court can make such orders as may be necessary to prevent abuse of process of court – It could even consider material produced on behalf of the accused. (Para 20)

(2005) 1 SCC 568; (2008) 14 SCC 1 – Relied upon

(1996) 9 SCC 766 – Referred

(b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – Inherent powers – Exercise of – Principles discussed. (Paras 21 to 23)

(c) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – Complainant initially alleging death of her daughter by poisoning – Later adding strangulation as cause of death – Also alleging strained relations and harassment – No allegation substantiated – On the other hand, materials relied upon by the appellant not refuted by complainant – Post-mortem report also supporting appellant’s case – High Court ought to have exercised its inherent powers. (Para 32)

1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 – Relied upon

Facts of the case:

The appellant’s wife died of natural death. Her father filed complaint u/ss 498A, and 304B.

The appellant challenging the cognizance produced materials showing his innocence. The trial court found no prima facie case against the appellant.

High Court however allowed the revision filed by the father of the deceased.

Finding of the Court:

High Court ought to have exercised its powers u/s 482, Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT

Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.-Leave granted.

2. Rajiv Thapar (appellant no. 1 herein) married Dr. Monica Kapoor on 30.11.1991. After her marriage, Dr. Monica Thapar got admission in a Post Graduate Diploma course in Gynaecology (DGO) at Medical College, Surat, in June 1992. Accordingly, she started working as a Resident at the aforesaid Medical College. At his own request, Rajiv Thapar, who was (and still is) a member of the Indian Revenue Services, was transferred from Ahmedabad to Surat. On 16.9.1992, while the husband and wife were living at Surat, Dr. Monica Thapar fell ill. For her treatment, she was admitted to Mahavir Hospital, Surat. She was diagnosed as suffering from Malaria. Having been treated for the same, she was discharged on 20.9.1992. Two days thereafter, Dr. Monica Thapar again fell ill on 22.9.1992. This time, she was taken to Medical College, Surat i.e., the hospital where she was herself working as a Resident. She was first examined by a radiologist, and thereafter, by Dr. Girish Kazi, a cardiologist. It was suspected, that she has a hole in her heart. Based on the aforesaid diagnosis, Dr. Dumaswala, another cardiologist, conducted Doppler echo-cardiography. The said echo-cardiography confirmed the presence of a large hole in her heart. On the advice of doctors who attended on Dr. Monica Thapar at Medical College, Surat, she was shifted to Urmil Heart and Lung Centre, Surat, on 24.9.1992. While at Urmil Heart and Lung Centre, Surat, Dr. Monica Thapar allegedly suffered a massive heart attack on 26.9.1992. The same supposedly proved fatal.

3. The factum of death of Dr. Monica Thapar was conveyed to the immediate family of Rajiv Thapar, as well as to the family of the deceased. A decision was taken to cremate the dead body at Delhi. Accordingly, after embalming the body of Dr. Monica Thapar, it was transported by rail to Delhi on 27.9.1992. The immediate family of Dr. Monica Thapar including her father Madan Lal Kapoor (respondent-complainant herein) were present at the time of arrival of the body at Delhi.

4. Madan Lal Kapoor made a complaint to the Police Control Room alleging, that he suspected that his daughter had been poisoned. This suspicion was based on the fact, that the body had turned blue. On the aforesaid complaint, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Delhi, in exercise of powers vested in him under Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as, the Cr.P.C.), initiated inquest proceedings. In the first instance, the body of the deceased was subjected to a post- mortem examination, for which the following Medical Board was constituted:-

(i) Dr. Bharat Singh, Medical Superintendent, Civil Hospital, Delhi.

(ii) Dr. L.T. Ramani, Chief Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Delhi.

(iii) Dr. Beena Malhotra, Professor, Pathology, G.B. Pant Hospital, New Delhi.

(iv) Dr. Amit Banerjee, Professor, Cardiothoracic Surgery, G.B. Pant Hospital, New Delhi.

The Medical Board came to the conclusion, that Dr. Monica Thapar had died of cardiac decomposition. The final opinion of the Medical Board, was recorded in a report dated 28.9.1992, in the following words:-

“OPINION In view of the clinical reports submitted and post mortem findings observed, the Board of Direcors is of the opinion that, death is consequent to cardiac decompensation due to enlarged atrial septal defect & pulmonary hypertension. No definite opinion can be given about falciparm Malaria, histopathological assessment.

Viscera is preserved for chemical analysis as desired by SDM. Time since death is about 48 hours and is consistent with the history.” (emphasis is ours)

During the post-mortem examination, samples from the stomach, intestine, liver, spleen, kidney and blood of the deceased’s body were taken. These samples were sent for chemical examination to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, New Delhi. The report of the Forensic Laboratory dated 9.2.1993, recorded the following conclusions:-

“SPECIFICATION OF THE ARTICL

Judicial Analysis

No cases in the provided list have been explicitly identified as overruled, reversed, or treated as bad law. The source material does not contain any language indicating such treatment for any of the listed precedents.

Fayaz Ahmad Sheikh VS Mushtaq Ahmad Khan - 2022 0 Supreme(J&K) 179: Offences under Section 138 of NI Act and Section 420 of IPC are distinct from each other and principle of double jeopardy or rule of estoppel does not come into play.

Satish Mehra VS Delhi Administration - 1996 5 Supreme 742: VERY 1. When the Judge is fairly certain that there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction the valuable time of the Court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date.2. If the Sessions Judge is almost certain that the trial would only be an exercise in futility or a sheer waste of time it is advisable to truncate or ship the proceedings at the stage of Section 287 of the Criminal Procedure Code itself.3. Sessions Judge would be within his powers to consider even materials which the accused may produce at the stage contemplated in Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

State Of Orissa VS Debendra Nath Pandhi - 2004 8 Supreme 568: At the stage of framing of charge, material as produced by the prosecution alone is to be considered and not the one produced by the accused.

All three cases lack any explicit language in the provided list indicating subsequent treatment such as "followed," "distinguished," "criticized," "questioned," "overruled," "reversed," or "abrogated." They are presented as standalone propositions without contextual framing that would reveal their judicial treatment history.

Fayaz Ahmad Sheikh VS Mushtaq Ahmad Khan - 2022 0 Supreme(J&K) 179: The treatment of this case cannot be determined from the provided text. The statement presents a legal principle without indicating whether it has been subsequently followed, distinguished, or otherwise treated.

Satish Mehra VS Delhi Administration - 1996 5 Supreme 742: The treatment of this case cannot be determined from the provided text. The "VERY" notation and the enumerated points present legal guidance without any explicit indication of how this precedent has been treated in subsequent decisions.

State Of Orissa VS Debendra Nath Pandhi - 2004 8 Supreme 568: The treatment of this case cannot be determined from the provided text. The statement provides a procedural rule without any language revealing its subsequent judicial treatment.

**Source :** Fayaz Ahmad Sheikh VS Mushtaq Ahmad Khan - Jammu and Kashmir Rukmini Narvekar VS Vijaya Satardekar - Supreme Court Satish Mehra VS Delhi Administration - Supreme Court State Of Orissa VS Debendra Nath Pandhi - Supreme Court

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA(D.K. Jain and Jagdish Singh Khehar JJ.) Rajiv Thapar & Ors. — Appellants versus Madan Lal Kapoor — Respondent Criminal appeal no. 174 of 2013 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 4883 of 2008)Decided on : 23-1-2013