Injuries Weren't Sufficient To Cause Death: Gujarat HC Grants Bail To Police Officers Convicted In Custodial Death Case
Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Justice S.V. Pinto of Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court while granting bail to Police Officers convicted and sentenced for murder of an undertrial prisoner belonging to scheduled caste, primarily on the ground that injuries weren't grave enough to cause death.
The Court was considering an application under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking suspension of sentence and release on regular bail during the pendency of appeal against the judgment of conviction whereby, the applicants-accused were sentenced to life imprisonment (rigorous) and fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- each and in default, one year simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 114 of IPC and life imprisonment (rigorous) and fine of Rs. 50,000/- each and in default, six months simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Sections 3(2)(5) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity) Act.
The division bench of Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Justice S.V. Pinto observed, "....all the injuries that were found on the body of the deceased and during the cross-examination has admitted that the external injuries were simple injuries and were skin deep or muscle deep and the individual injuries were not sufficient to cause death. The witness has also admitted that in the postmortem note, he has not opined as to whether the injuries were sufficient to cause death. Considering the entire evidence of the prosecution, we find that the arguments of the learned Advocate for the applicants deserve consideration and we are persuaded to exercise discretion in favour of the applicants for the purpose of substantive order of sentence."
The Applicant was represented by Advocate Ankit M Modi while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Rajesh R Dewal.
Counsel for the Applicant submitted that they have been in custody for more than four years and seven months and that the medical officer who has performed the post-mortem on the body of the deceased has stated that the injuries were simple in nature and individually not sufficient to cause death and the prosecution has failed to prove a direct nexus between any individual injury caused to the deceased and the cause of death. He averred that the prosecution failed to prove that the cause of death is directly attributed to the injuries caused by the applicants and there is no evidence that the present applicants are involved in the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
The Counsel submitted that the Trial Court has not appreciated that the applicants have not been identified by any person and PW30 has stated that he could not find anyone causing injury to any person and from the CD he could not identify the applicants and the identification of the applicants was on the basis of assumptions. He argued that there was misconduct committed by the deceased as it appears from the record that he had escaped from the Zonal Safety Home and pursuant to regaining the custody, hurt was caused which was neither grievous not sufficient to cause death and under the circumstances, the ambit of the offence either falls within the realm of Section 324 or Section 330 of the Indian Penal Code. He further argued that the postmortem note fails to prove that the death was homicidal and considering the long period of incarceration of the applicants and the evidence on record, the applicants have a good case on merits.
He relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 125 of 2021 (arising out of SLP (Cri.) No. 6174/2020) with Criminal Appeal No. 126 of 2021 (arising out of SLP (Cri.) No. 6224/2020) in the case of Pravat Chandra Mohanty V. The State of Odisha & Anr.
The Court accepted the submissions of the Counsel for the Applicant and observed, "we deem it appropriate that this is a fit case to suspend the sentence imposed upon the applicants and enlarge them on bail pending the Criminal Appeal."
The Application was accordingly allowed.
Cause Title: Vishnukumar Laxmanbhai Prajapati & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat & Anr.
Appearances:
Applicant- Advocate Ankit M Modi, Advocate Krshan R Chakwawala
Respondent- Advocate Rajesh R Dewal, Additional Public Prosecutor Jay Mehta
Click here to read/ download Order