Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohd. Matloob vs Mustafa on 20 December, 2016
CRR-856-2016
(MOHD. MATLOOB Vs MUSTAFA)
20-12-2016
Shri Ahadulla Usmani, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Aseem Kumar Dixit, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3.
Shri Anil Pandey, Panel Lawyer for respondent No.4/State. By this revision under Section 397 read with 401 of CrPC, the applicant has assailed the order dated 27.02.2016 passed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in S.T. No.113/2016 whereby, learned ASJ discharged the accused persons for offence under Section 304/34 IPC.
The prosecution story in brief is that, deceased Jameel Ahmad and the accused persons had an altercation in the field with regard to the dispute of a plot in which bricks were being kept. Jameel Ahmad left for his home. After some time, he suffered pain in his chest. His family members took him for treatment to the hospital. On the way, he suffered heart attack and died. Postmortem report reveals that he died due to heart attack. He had no injury on his body. In FSL report also no poison was found in the viscera. Learned ASJ passed the impugned order dated 27.02.2016 and discharged the accused persons stating that no prima facie case is made out against the accused persons for framing of charge under Section 304/34 of IPC.
Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently contended that the respondents were in the knowledge of the fact that deceased Jameel Ahmad was a heart patient. The accused persons deliberately created unhealthy atmosphere and had an altercation with him which resulted into his heart attack of Jameel Ahmad. Therefore, there is close proximity between the actions of the accused persons and the cause of death. Cardio Respiratory Failure and cardiac arrest resulted into death which has been caused because of the action of the accused persons.Therefore, there is prima facie evidence of offence under Section 302 of IPC. The applicant/complainant prays for setting aside the order and to frame charge under Section 302 of IPC against the accused persons.
Learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3 has opposed the contentions and submits that death was caused by "heart attack". There was no injury found to the deceased. Deceased was on the way for treatment, during which he suffered severe heart attack and passed away. Therefore, learned Trial court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in passing the impugned order.
Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.4/State has contended that there has been a quarrel and subsequent thereto the incident took place, therefore, accused persons are liable for their acts.
The circumstances prevailed in the case show that there was a quarrel with regard to the empty plot and after the altercation, deceased Jameel Ahmad had left for his home. After some time, he felt pain in chest. He was being taken to the hospital. On the way, he died. Postmortem report dated 29.05.2016 shows that deceased died due to "cardiac arrest". Viscera report dated 12.08.2015 submitted by FSL Sagar ruled out any chemical poison in Viscera. There was only hot exchange of words and dialogues. The query report submitted by the Medical Officer is only a hypothesis and there is no prima facie evidence about the accused persons having deliberately created the altercation with intent to bring about the heart attack to the deceased. This is not a fit case for exercising powers under Section 397 r/w 401 of CrPC.
Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. (SUSHIL KUMAR PALO) JUDGE sukla