Back
2019 Supreme(Del) 1811
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, J.
Maya Devi and Others – Appellants
Versus
State and Another – Respondents
Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 536 of 2017, Criminal Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2323 of 2017
Decided On : 06-11-2019
Advocate Appeared:
Sandeep Garg, Priya Saxena, Panna Lal Sharma, Deepak Vashisht, S.P. Yadav, Mahesh Saroj.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of thorough investigation in cases of suspicious deaths, the relevance of medical evidence, and the need for forensic investigation to determine the exact cause of death.
Headnote:
Criminal Revision - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 156(3) - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the application of Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code and the relevance of medical evidence in cases of suspicious deaths. The judgment also referenced the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahabir Mandal and Others vs. State of Bihar, (1972) AIR SC 1331, regarding the detection of poisons in viscera and the significance of forensic investigation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to set aside a judgment and order passed by the Ld. Special Judge-CBI-03 PC Act, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in a complaint case involving the death of the complainant's husband. The trial court dismissed the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent no. 2, citing medical evidence ruling out foul play. The Criminal Revision filed by the respondent no. 2 was allowed by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, leading to the present petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the initial investigation into the death was not proper, and there were suspicious circumstances that needed thorough investigation. It directed the concerned SHO to register an FIR and investigate under the appropriate provisions of law U/s. 156(3) Cr.P.C. after one week of receipt of the order.
Issues: The issues revolved around the cause of the deceased's sudden death, the adequacy of the initial investigation, and the relevance of medical evidence in establishing foul play.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the initial investigation was not proper, and there were suspicious circumstances that warranted thorough investigation. It emphasized the importance of forensic investigation and the need for a medical board to determine the exact cause of death.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of, and the trial court was directed to direct the concerned SHO to register FIR and investigate under the appropriate provisions of law U/s. 156(3) Cr.P.C. after one week of receipt of the order.
JUDGMENT :
Suresh Kumar Kait, J.
1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks direction thereby directing to set aside the judgment and order dated 31.01.2017 passed by the Ld. Special Judge-CBI-03 PC Act, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in C.R. No. 12/2016 titled as Ms. Versha Aggarwal vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Another, whereby the ld. Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to allow the criminal revision filed by the respondent no. 2 and set aside the order on application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. dated 10.08.2016 passed by the ld. Metropolitan Magistrate-07, Central District , Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in complaint case titled as Versha Aggarwal vs. Maya Devi and Others, whereby the ld. Trial Court was pleased to dismiss the application of respondent no. 2 under section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are as stated in the complaint filed by the complainant i.e. respondent no. 2 that the complainant married Pradeep Kumar Aggarwal on 01.07.2009 and after marriage she started residing at her matrimonial house consisting of petitioners, who are her mother in law (petitioner no. 1), brothers in law (petitioners nos. 2-4), sister in law (nanad) (petitioner no. 6) and jaithani (sister-in-law) (petitioner no. 5) respectively. As per the complainant i.e. respondent no. 2, it is stated that on 27.11.2014, she and her husband went to their relatives at Aligarh and thereafter proceeded to Khurja for a marriage function and both of them attended the marriage at Khurja and After marriage on 02.12.2004, the complainant's husband departed for Delhi, whereas, complainant stayed back. It came to the knowledge of the Complainant that the deceased had his last dinner prepared and cooked by his mother on 03.12.2014 and at around 09:00 P.M, when complainant's husband had reached home after attending the shop. On 04.12.2014 at about 12:30 p.m. she was informed about the death of her husband. The deceased was taken to the Hindu Rao hospital and was declared dead after all the formalities and medical examinations.
3. It is further submitted that in the month of August of 2015 the respondent no. 2 had filed a complaint case under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the petitioners in the court of ld. CMM which was marked to the concerned MM for registration of FIR. Ld. MM on the application and complaint of respondent no. 2 had directed to the concerned Police Station to file status report i.e. ATR and accordingly status report was filed which clearly show that it was a Natural Death. Considering the status report and other documents, the Ld. MM vide its order dated 10.08.2016 dismissed the application by observing that in the chemical analysis of viscera, no poisonous substance was detected and as per the final opinion given by the doctors of the Hindu Rao Hospital, the cause of death was septic shock due to lung infection and therefore medical evidence collected by the police during the inquiry was sufficient to rule out the possibility of any foul play. Accordingly, matter was listed for leading complainant evidence with liberty to the complainant to substantiate her allegations. Being aggrieved respondent no. 2 preferred a Criminal Revision which was marked and assigned to Ld. ASJ, Delhi and vide order dt. 31.01.2017 the court was pleased to set aside the order dated 10.08.2016 passed by the Ld. MM.
4. In the present case the statement of the mother of deceased Maya Devi was recorded by the IO of the case during the inquest proceedings on 04.12.2014 in which, she stated that his third son i.e. deceased was residing on the first floor of the house and he was running a cloth shop in Bhajanpura. On 03.12.2014 he came back from the shop at around 10:00 P.M. since his wife and children had gone to Aligarh, therefore she cooked food for him at around 10:00 P.M. thereafter at around 02:00 in the night she heard noise from the room of his son as if something had fallen down. When she went up, she found the room
