IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9083 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
SHIVAKUMAR D P S/O C.S.PRASANNA, R/O NO.65, ASTAGRAMA 2ND STAGE, KAMAKSHIPALYA, BENGALURU-560079 (Ms.ARPITHA K.V., ADVOCATE FOR SRI: KO. VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA KAMAKSHIPALYA POLICE STATION, NOW REPTD. BY S.P.P.
HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001 2. RAMANNA S.R S/O LATE RANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 3. RAMA @MANJA S/O HANUMANTHAYYA, ... PETITIONER AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT NO.91, MARUTHI NILAYA, ASHTAGRAMA LAYOUT, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, KAMAKSHIPALYA, BENGALURU-560079 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; SRI: B.VISWESWARAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.03.2015 PASSED BY THE P.O FTC-II, BANGALORE REJECTING THE CRL.R.P.NO.687/2014 BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 21.08.2014 PASSED BY V ACMM, BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.33420/2010 DISMISSING THE APPLICATION FULED U/S 323 OF CRPC AND ALOW THE ABOVE CRL.P.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Petitioner is the father of deceased Sharath. It is alleged that the deceased and respondent Nos.2 and 3 were neighbours and friends. One week prior to the incident, it is stated that, there was a quarrel between them and even on 18.11.2009, respondents herein alleged to have picked up a quarrel with the deceased and threatened him. On the same day, deceased developed vomiting and stomach pain. He was initially taken to local clinic and thereafter, he was treated in Panacea Hospital where he was declared dead at 5.45 pm on 25.11.2009.
2. On the same day, the father of the deceased lodged a complaint alleging that, on account of the above incident, the deceased had consumed poison. Based on this complaint, FIR was registered for the offences punishable under sections 323, 506 read with 34 of IPC against respondent Nos.2 and 3.
However, after the death of the deceased, the charge under section 306 of IPC was incorporated. After investigation, the charge under section 306 of IPC was dropped for want of proof and the charge sheet was laid only for the offences punishable under sections 323, 506 read with 34 of IPC.
3. During the pendency of trial, the Senior Asst.
Government Prosecutor filed an application under section 323 of IPC, to commit the case to the Sessions Court, on the ground that the facts disclosed during investigation, make out the offences under section 306 of IPC. However, learned Magistrate on considering the entire material on record, was of the opinion that there was no clear evidence to show that the deceased died on account of consumption of poison and consequently dismissed the said application. The revision preferred against the said order before the Fast Track Court-II, Bengaluru City has also ended in dismissal. Complainant is therefore before this Court challenging the orders passed by the Courts below and seeking to commit the matter to the Sessions Court for trial of alleged offence under section 306 of IPC.
4. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Addl. SPP for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner by referring to the specific allegation made in the complaint as well as the final opinion given by the Medical Officer who conducted the post mortem examination, would submit that there is clear material to show that the deceased died due to consumption of poison and therefore, both the courts below have committed an error in rejecting the application under section 323 of IPC.
6. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3, however, would submit that the material on record does not prima facie establish that the deceased committed suicide and therefore, the Courts below have rightly dismissed the application.
7. Learned Addl. SPP appearing for respondent No.1 – State, submitted that, though initially application was filed by the State, the State has not preferred any appeal against the said order. Hence, appropriate orders be passed taking into consideration the material and circumstances of the case.
8. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the records.
9. Eventhough it is alleged that the incident is stated to have taken place on 18.11.2009, no complaint was lodged by the father of the deceased until 25.11.2009, nor any medico- legal case was registered on the date of the incident which indicates that there was no allegation against any one of the accused that on their abetment, the deceased consumed poison. The records maintained by the Panacea Hospital where the deceased was treated, which is made available by the prosecution, which is also a part of the charge sheet, reveal the following:-
Course in the Hospital:
An young adult male by name Mr. Sharath aged 21 years with no significant Comorbid was admitted in the ward on 19.11.09 with h/o lower abdomen pain & repeated episodes of vomiting since 18.11.2009. He was taken to the local clinic initially where he was given treatment, as his abdomen pain & vomiting worsened hence he was admitted in the ward. Relevant investigations and work up was done to evaluate the cause for pain abdomen/vomiting. On day 2 his father gave alleged h/o consumption of Rat Poison (3% phosphorus), hence investigated for the same and was found to have altered LFT with altered coagulation factors, hence he was shifted to ICU. On evaluation in the ICU he was conscious, oriented and spontaneous breathing maintaining SP02-98% in room air. Had stable vitals. On systemic examination he has soft abdomen with no organomegaly. His investigations were suggestive of fulminent Liver failure as his LFT were highly deranged also had highly deranged coagulation factors. His USG abdomen shows hepatomegaly with fatty infiltration. Over a period of time patient went into renal failure, hepatic encephalopathy with respiratory distress. He was treated with liver protective drugs, anti coma measures, antibiotics, Ionotropes, fresh frozen plasma & other supportive treatment. He was intubated & connected to ventilator in view of impending respiratory distress. Despite all life supporting drugs & management. Patient deteriorated on 25.11.2009. Patients has cardic arrest & despite all the resuscitatory measures as per ACLS guide line he could not be revived & hence declared dead at 6:45 pm on 25.11.2009.
Cause of Death:
TO BE ASCERTAINED AFTER POST MORTEM 10. What is important to be noted is that, on the next day of admission of the patient, eventhough it was disclosed to the hospital authority that he had consumed rat poison, the Medical Officer who treated the deceased did not find any symptom of consumption of poison and therefore, he did not certify with regard to the cause of death and kept the opinion pending. This document therefore clearly indicates that during treatment, there was no symptom of consumption of poison. Even the Medical Officer who conducted the post mortem examination, did not record any finding to come to the conclusion that the deceased died on account of consumption of poison. The medical report indicates that the final opinion regarding cause of death was kept reserved pending the FSL report. The report of the FSL clearly disclose that residues of volatile poisons, Pesticides, Barbiturates, Benzodiazepine group of drugs, toxic metal ions and anions were not detected in all the above stated exhibits namely stomach and its contents and portion of small intestine and its contents; portion of liver and one kidney; blood and preservative.
11. No doubt, deceased died about a week after his admission into hospital and residues of poison would not have been detected in the viscera and other stomach contents. But, if infact the deceased had died due to consumption of poison, the medical records maintained in Panacea Hospital would have reflected the physical symptoms as well as other material and the Medical Officer would have recorded a finding to that effect. The very fact that the Medical Officer who treated the deceased also kept the final opinion pending post mortem report indicates that, it is only after opinion given by the Medical Officer who conducted the post mortem examination, the allegation of suicide appears to have taken shape.
12. The final opinion given by the Assistant Professor who conducted the post mortem examination reads as under:-
“On perusal of post mortem report, FSL opinion report and hospital records, I am of the opinion death is due to consumption of substance containing unknown poison resulting in Respiratory failure. However, same could not be detected in the chemical analysis.
This opinion is contrary to the findings of the FSL authorities or hospital records. As already stated above, Panacea Hospital has not recorded any finding as to the fact that deceased died due to consumption of substance containing unknown poison resulting in respiratory failure; rather the opinion of Panacea Hospital is that, “despite all life supporting drugs and management, patient deteriorated on 25.11.2009. Patient had cardiac arrest and despite all the resuscitatory measures as per ACLS guidelines he could not be revived.” This opinion is contrary to the opinion given by the Medical Officer who conducted the post mortem examination.
13. From the above, it is clear that there is no clear evidence to show that the deceased committed suicide. When there is no evidence to show that the deceased committed suicide, charge under section 306 of IPC cannot stand. Both the courts below have arrived at the same conclusion and on reconsideration of the material on record, I do not find any reason to differ with the view taken by the courts below. As a result, I do not find any merit in the instant petition.
Consequently, petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Bss