Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has filed an affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 today, which is taken on record.
Heard Sri Dharmendra Singhal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Abhishek Srivastav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anurag Pathak and Sri Harshit Pathak, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, Sri G.P. Singh learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
Learned A.G.A. has apprised the Court that he was not directed to file counter affidavit and it was stated that he did not file the same because there was no direction issued to that effect on the first day when this case was taken up, therefore, he seeks time to file the counter affidavit.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been moved with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings of charge-sheet dated 30.10.2018 as well as cognizance order dated 27.11.2018 in Case No. 2732 of 2018 (State vs. Sukbir Singh and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 0463 of 2017 under section 201 I.P.C., P.S. Bhojipura, District Bareilly pending in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Bareilly including the summoning order dated 27.11.2018 and also a prayer is made to stay the proceedings in this case till the disposal of this application.
As per FIR, which has been lodged by opposite party no. 2, the prosecution case is that his daughter Km. Ananaya aged about 17 years was studying in S.R.M.S.I.M.S. Medical College, Bareilly in first year after getting admitted there on 28.8.2017. On 1.9.2017 he had brought back the deceased from the hostel to Noida and thereafter on 3.9.2017, he had dropped her back at the hostel in happy and healthy condition. Three days thereafter i.e. on 6.9.2017, he was informed that her daughter had committed suicide, pursuant to which the informant along with family members went to the Medical College and performed last rite of the deceased. Because of his being mentally perturbed, on the said day he could not reveal the entire facts about the occurrence, now after having come to know the entire facts, he was submitting this application. It is mentioned that the college administration was stating this case to be the suicide but possibility of murder cannot be ruled out because the deceased had died under suspicious circumstances and reason for the deceased having died could be ragging as well. Informant's daughter often told him about the ragging and indecent behaviour with her and because of which she was mentally perturbed and hence it could be possibility that she might have taken decision to end her life. Further, it is mentioned that after having knowledge of this occurrence, the higher authorities of the institution went to the room of the deceased without waiting for the police and ordered for breaking of the lock. Information of this occurrence was not given to the informant from the side of the college administration and the informant has come know from other source. He had also made phone call to the college administration on mobile phone but no information was given and ultimately when he contacted Dr. R.C. Purohit (applicant) at about 1.00 p.m., he had authoritatively disclosed to him that his daughter had committed suicide. The concealment on the part of the college administration about the demise of the deceased, was not natural. On 6.9.2017 when the informant had reached the premises of the institution, he w as told by the applicant that on 6.9.2017 while the deceased was going to attend her 1st class at 7.45 A.M., the deceased had complained about headache but she was not extended no help by the institution to reach her hostel. Another inmate of the said hostel namely, Km. Priyanka Singh had earlier committed suicide in the hostel on 28.5.2015 and prior to that, another inmate Yash Kumar Khatwani had also committed suicide in 2016 and therefore, it is apparent that the deceased has been murdered under well thought out conspiracy. No suicide note was found from her room. Thus, in depth investigation is required to be done in this case. In post-mortem report cause of death has been recorded to be asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging and trachea and hyoid bone was found NAD. No external injuries are found to have been sustained by the deceased. The police after having investigated this case, after having recorded statements of as many as 25 witnesses, has submitted charge-sheet against the accused-applicant under section 201 IPC.
Submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is the Principal of the institution. He has no motive to kill the deceased. In fact, the deceased had close relation with co-accused Sukhbir with whom she used to often talk on phone. The applicant being the Principal of the college and also being a doctor, he was duty bound to save life of the deceased, who was hanging with the fan as it was not know to anyone when she had hanged herself therefore, immediately he ordered the door to be opened forcibly with the hope that the deceased might be alive and her life could be saved. The settled position of law is that it is duty of the doctor to attend the injured/serious persons without waiting for the police to come. It is further argued that in all ten witnesses including the applicant who were present on the spot when the door was opened, none of them had stated that the applicant was searching inside the room or removing or disturbing any item in the room. Moreover, there were three girls staying in the room of the deceased. The applicant had no knowledge which part of the room was occupied by the deceased. He went inside the room examining the pulse of the girl and came out and closed the door. A carpenter was called out to get the room opened. The Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of Noopur, the class mate of the deceased, who has stated that the deceased after returning from home was not happy and had stated that she was much happier in Dental college. She had refused to go hospital for her medical check up and it was said that few days prior to this incident, evidence has also come on record that the deceased and Sukhbir both were class-mates and had passed Intermediate examination. First they applied in State of Himachal Pradesh to take admission in BDS course. Sukhbir took admission in BDS while the deceased got her admitted in MBBS Course at Bareilly. Further, it is argued that the offence under section 201 IPC pertains to causing disappearance of evidence of an offence or giving false evidence.In the present case, there is no allegation or any evidence in support thereof. The applicant being the Principal of the institution had no concern with the hostel where the deceased died and that it is a case of suicide through and through. The trial court without applying judicious mind, has taken cognizance against the accused-applicant and has proceeded with the trial and therefore, it is prayed that the charge-sheet needs to be quashed and cognizance order also needs to be quashed.
On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing of the proceedings and has drawn attention to page-18 of the counter affidavit, which is a report of Dr. Amarnath Mishra, Forensic Expert, wherein it is mentioned that the photograph nos. 1 and 2 do not show any attempt of pushing and breaking the door. As per the observation made from the photographs, it appears that the door was not closed from inside. There was no evidence of broken wood which would suggest that the door was forcibly opened. These circumstances strongly suggest that some person was present at the scene of occurrence, therefore, it is wrong to suggest that somebody tried to open the door forcibly. Next, he has drawn attention to the report of the same doctor which is annexed at page-24 of the counter affidavit, in which it is stated by him that the body of the deceased was found suspended from the ceiling fan facing towards the bed. However, had she committed suicide, she would have jumped from the bed in the opposite direction to suffocate herself and cause the noose to tighten around her neck. Thus, the body of the deceased should have been facing in the opposite direction. The positioning of the body suggests that the body was pulled and lifted upwards in an attempt to tie a knot at the upper end of the dupatta on the ceiling fan and having observed so, he had mentioned that it may not be a case of suicide. There was no fracture of hyoid bone. Then, he had drawn attention to the CDR details of the deceased which is annexed at page-35 of the counter affidavit and it is pointed out by him that after the death of the deceased from 12:51:47 to 13:44:54, there were seven messages deleted from the phone of the deceased and has stated that some one had access to the room and deleted the message in order to remove the evidence.
After having pointed out these pieces of evidence, it is argued that it cannot be ruled out that there was strong possibility of the accused being involved in removing the evidence in this case and therefore, the offence under section 201 IPC, which is found to have been made out prima-facie by the Investigating Officer, cannot be said to be a case without evidence and quashing of the charge-sheet is strongly opposed.
From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of this case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the Bar relates to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of R. P. Kapur vs. The State Of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 and State of Bihar and Anr. Vs. P.P. Sharma, AIR 1991 SC 1260 lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Md. Sharaful Haque and Ors., AIR 2005 SC 9. The disputed defense of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
After having gone through the entire evidence, I am of the view that it is not found to be a fit case in which quashing should be allowed. The facts which are stated by the learned counsel for the applicant, are disputed and therefore, it should be decided by the trial court. Therefore, the prayer of quashing the proceedings is refused.
This application is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 10.2.2021 AU