Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
RAJ SINGH ..... Petitioner
For the Petitioner : Mr.S. C. Sagar Chand Ravi and Mr. Naeem Ahmed, Advocate
Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhya, ASC with SI Dharmveer, PS Chhawla
[ The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode ]
1. This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking the direction for implementing the order dated 29.01.2020 passed by this Court whereby the present petition was disposed of with the following directions:- “1.The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying that directions be issued to the respondent to collect the viscera W.P.(CRL) 3127/2019 2 analysis report of the deceased. The petitioner has also sought other prayers with regard to the conduct of the investigation.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the State has filed a status report which indicates that the case is under examination and is being taken up on top priority. He states that the viscera report from FSL is awaited. And, based on the forensic evidence, further steps would be taken by the respondent. The concerned FSL is directed to complete the analysis expeditiously and in any event, within a period of twelve weeks from today.
3. The investigation agency shall also take necessary steps to carry out further investigation, if so warranted.”
2. To recapitulate the facts of the writ petition, it is stated that this petition was filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction / order against the respondent for not obtaining the viscera analysis report and further praying for conducting the lie-detection test or narco analysis test on the suspects in accordance with law and for inaction / dormancy shown by the respondent on the complaint dated 13.08.2019 and 26/27.08.2019 submitted by the petitioner.
3. The facts as narrated in the petition are as under:-
4. Mr. Sagar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the deceased was the grandson of the petitioner and the petitioner had a doubt on the genuineness or authenticity of the version given by the friends of the deceased who brought him from Haridwar to Delhi by way of an ambulance. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that neither the nature of death nor the reasons as to how the death occurred, is cleared by the respondent leading the petitioner to file the petition.
5. Mr. Sagar, learned counsel also submits that it is for this reason that the petitioner sought intervention of this Court for not only directing the respondent to place on record the post mortem report but also the Histopathology Report so as to ensure that there was no foul play suspected in respect of the death of the grandson of the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel also submits that the request for examining the suspects according to the petitioner by administering Narcotics Analysis tests which is only for the purpose of ascertaining as to on what basis and what were the attending circumstances leading to the death of the grandson of the petitioner. W.P.(CRL) 3127/2019 5
7. Learned counsel also submits that despite having filed the present petition in the year 2019, it has taken years for the respondent to react and to place on record the P.M. Report as also the FSL report which was already conducted in the year 2019.
8. Learned counsel submits that a strong signal should be sent to the respondent to act in time so as to ensure that people like the petitioner are not kept hanging and are not harassed by the respondent.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that though the FSL report may have been prepared earlier in time, however, the final opinion regarding the cause of death was prepared by the Special Forensics Medical Doctor on 17.05.2022 which was the reason for delay in filing the said documents.
10. According to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, the final opinion regarding the death of the deceased shows that the cause of death in the present case is undetermined on the basis of the doctor having examined the P.M. Report, FSL report and Histopathology Report. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the entire medical report of the deceased including the P.M. report and the FSL report has been placed on record as soon as it was available with the respondent.
11. Learned counsel, by referring to para No. 3 of the status report on 01.05.2023, submits that after the final opinion was rendered by SPL, Forensic Medicine, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, RTRM Hospital, Jaffarpur, New Delhi, no offence is made out. Hence, a report under Section 174 Cr.P.C.was prepared and forwarded by SHO/PS Chhawla and W.P.(CRL) 3127/2019 6 ACP/Chhawla to SDM Dwarka. Resultantly, on 12.04.2023, the SDM Dwarka had filed the report and consigned it to record.
12. This Court has heard the submissions made by Mr. Sagar and learned counsel appearing for Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhya, learned ASC for State and carefully perused the medical records placed on record by the respondent.
13. Histopathology Report was prepared sometime in December, 2019 shows no reasons to suspect any foul play at all. For the purpose of appreciating the issue, it would be appropriate to extract the Histopathology Report “Received a specimen of heart measuring 12x9x[4].[5] cm weighing 300 gm. Microscopically unremarkable. Received a piece of brain measuring 7.5x6x4cm. Microscopically unremarkable. Received two piece of lung larger measuring 8x5x2cm. Microscopically unremarkable Received a piece of liver measuring 8x4x[3].5cm. Microscopically unremarkable. Received two pieces of spleen together measuring 8x7x3cm. Microscopically unremarkable. Received two pieces of kidney larger measuring 6x4x2cm and smaller measuring 5x3x[1].5cm. Microscopically unremarkable. According to the aforesaid report, it does not seem, that there is any foul play in the examination which has been conducted while W.P.(CRL) 3127/2019 7 generating the Histopathology Report.
14. Subsequently, the examination report of the FSL dated 17.02.2020 is also placed on record which states that “On Chemical, microscopic, TLC, GC-HS & GC-MS examination, metallic poisons, ethyl and methyl alcohol, cyanide, phosphide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquillizers and pesticides could not be detected in the Exhibits ‘1A’, ‘1B’, ‘ 1C’ & 1D”. A perusal of the above also does not indicate any suspicious circumstances for this Court to suspect any foul play.
15. This Court has also closely examined and scrutinised the P.M. Report dated 28.07.2019 placed on record by the respondent. There is no injury or even any other aspect which could create any kind of a doubt in the mind of this Court that there is any foul play in the death of the deceased grandson of the petitioner. In fact, the final opinion rendered by one Dr. Pravindra Singh on 17.05.2022 in respect of cause of death also categorically states that “On perusal of post-mortem examination report, FSL report, histopathology report and inquest papers, it is opined that cause of death in this case is undetermined”.
16. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is a slight difference between the report generated previously and the subsequent report and final opinion for cause of death leading to some kind of doubt as to whether the doctors have been able to correctly examine the issue.
17. This Court has considered the above submission and finds it untenable for the reason that the previous opinion was rendered prior to the report by the histopathology department of the Safdarjung Hospital. W.P.(CRL) 3127/2019 8 The final opinion rendered by Dr. Pravindra Singh was only after having in front of him all the relevant reports including the P.M. Report, FSL Report and Histopathology Report to come to the conclusion that death in the present case is undetermined.
18. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, though the death of the deceased grandson of the petitioner is unfortunate, however, does not lead this Court to come to any other conclusion than that there is no foul play in respect of death of the deceased grandson.
19. In view of above, this Court is of the considered opinion that no further purpose would be subserved in continuing with the present application and the same is disposed of in the above terms.
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J. SEPTEMBER 6, 2023