INDU JAIN versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

[2008) 14 S.C.R. 1137

INDU JAIN

II. STATE. OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 1683 of 2008 and Ors)

OCTOBER 23, 2008

[ALTAMAS KABIR AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.240, Framing of

charges - Custodial death of accused in office of Lokayukta ~

Charges framed against officers of Lokayukta u/s 304 Part II but dropped u/s. 330 /PC - Set aside by High Court- Direc~ tions issued to frame charges u/s. 323134 !PC - On appeal, held: It was established that deceased was asthmatic - De-spite that he was detained in wholly unhygienic conditions which triggered his asthmatic attack leading to .his death on account of asphyxia - Injuries found on the body of deceased might have been caused during attempts at resuscitation when he was brought to Hospital in comatose condition - There-fore, prima facie case made out for framing of charges against accused persons u/s. 304 Part II and 330 and not u/s. 302 /PC - Order of Sessions Judge framing charge u/s.304 Part II /PC restored -Also direction issued to frame charges uls. 330 /PC - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 304 Part II and 330.

The officers of the Special Police Establishment

(Lokayukta) arrested the Depufy Commissioner, Commer-

cial Tax for taking bribe and was detained in the office of Lokayukta. The next day prior to 9 a.m., DC was found unconscious in the bathroom of the Office of Lokayukta and.was taken to the hospital for treatment. When he was brought to the hospital for treatment, his body neither had any pulse nor respiration and recordable blood pressure and heart sound were also absent. Resuscitation mea-sures were undertaken and there was little response. At 1.30 p.m., DC was declared dead. FIR was lodged. lnves-

[tigation ][was ][carried out. Post Mortem examination ][was ]conducted at 4.00 p.m. which revealed certain injuries on the body including broken ribs and cause of death was shown to be asphyxia within six hours of the post mortem examination. Investigating agency filed charge sheet. The [Sessions Judge framed charges against the five accu?ed ]persons u/s 304 Part II IPC but dropped charge u/s. 330 IPC. Accused person filed criminal revision. The complain-ant-widow of deceased filed criminal revision challeng-ing the dropping of charges u/s. 330 IPC. High Court set [aside ][the ][charges ][framed ][by ][Sessions ][Judge ][and ][di-]rected framing of charges u/s. 323/34 IPC. Hence the present appeal by the complainant, the State and the ac-cused persons.

Partly allowing the appeal filed by the complainant and the State and dismissing the appeal filed by the ac-cused, the Court

--HELD: 1.1 It has been sufficiently established that the deceased was patient of asthma .which could cause asphyxia which was ultimately said to be the cause of his death. It is also clear that notwithstanding his serious res-piratory problem, the deceased was kept in window-less room which was full of dust and cobwebs which are known allergens for triggering an asthma attack, which can be fatal, as in the instant case. The injuries found on the body of the deceased may have been caused during attempts at resuscitation, but all the said circumstances can only be considered during proper trial and riot on the basis of surmises at the time of framing charge where on the strength of the charge sheet only prima facie satisfaction about the commission of an offence has· to be arrived at by the trial court ..• Therefore, while rejecting the submissions that there were no materials on record to frame charge against the accused persons even .. un-der Section 323/34 IPC, it can be observed that on prima

[facie ][view ][of ][the matter, there is ][ground ][to ][proceed against ]

INDU JAIN v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

the accused p~rsons even under Section 304 Part II IPC. It is agreed that the High Court had erred in quashing the charge framed against the accused persons under Sec-tion 304 Part II and observing that in view of the materials on record only charge under Section 323 could be brought against the accused persons. [Para 31] (1152-D to H)

1.2 The submission that charge under Section 302 IPC should also have been framed against the accused persons cannot be accepted as at this stage there is little to establish an intention on the part of the accused to willfully cause the death of DC. [Para 32] (1153-A)

1.3 Since the cause of death has been shown to be asphyxia on account of detention of the deceased in un-hygienic conditions despite his respiratory problems and the injuries to the ribs and mouth of the deceased could possibly have been caused by the attempts made by the doctor at the Hospital to resuscitate the deceased, who had been brought to the Hospital in comatose condi-tion, with the body showing no signs of pulse, respira-tion or blood pressure, prima facie case is made out for framing of charge under Section 330 IPC. The sheet show-ing the progress and treatment of the accused on arrivaJ at the Hospital, also corroborates the same and it also mentions the fact that cardiac pulmonary resuscitation was immediately started and the patient was also put on mechanical ventilator as part of the attempts at resusci-F tation. Apart from indicating that the patient had died of asphyxia, the medical opinion does not give any reason for such asphyxia and even in reply to the queries made on behalf of the investigating authorities the reply re-ceived from the doctor as to the cause of death, was that it had occurred due to asphyxia, but as to how it had oc-curred was under investigation. [Para 34] (1153-D to H; 1154-A)

1.4 The materials submitted by the Investigating Au-thority in its Final Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. does

establish the fact that the deceased had l)een kept in room which was highly unsuitable for person suffering from respiratory problems. The Senior Scientist of the Mobile Unit of the District Police Force indicated that the condition of the room where the deceased had been de-8 tained was completely unsuitable for patient of asthma ·as it was filled with dust and cobwebs which was suffi-cient to trigger an asthmatic attack which could have · caused asphyxia which ultimately led to DC's death. [Para 35] (1154-8, C, D)

1.5 The order. of the High Court impugned in these

appeals is set aside. The order of the Se.ssions Judge framing charge against the accused persons under sec-tion 304 Part II IPC is restored and it is directed that charges .a.l.s~Q~be framed against the accused persons under section 330 IPC. [Para 36] (1154-E)

Om Wati (Smt.) and Anr. vs. State 2001 (4) SCC 333; -, State of Maharashtra vs. Salman Salim Khan 2004 (1) SCC 525; State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi 2005 (1) SCC 568; Satish Mehra vs. Delhi Administration 1996 (9) SCC , 766; Keshub Mahendra v. State of M.P 1996 (6) SCC 129; ' Kewal Kishan v. Suray Bhan and Anr. AIR 1980 SC 1780; Bharat Parikh vs. Union of India 2008 (1) Scale 86 - referred to.

CASE LAW REFERENCE

200.1 (4) sec 333 2Q04 (1 > sec 5~5 2005 (1 > sec 568 1996 (9) sec 766 1996 (6) sec 129 AIR 1980 SC 1780 2008 (1) Scale 86

Referred to. Referred to. Referred to. Referred to. Referred to. Referred to. Referred to.

Para 19 Para 19 Para 19 Para 19 Para 25 'r Para 28 Para 33

" [- 'l ]

INDU JAIN v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

9RIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1683 of 2008

From the final Judgment and Order dated 11.9.2006 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Crl. Revision No. 1114 of 2005

WITH

Criminal Appeal No-s. 1684, 1685, 1686 and 1687 of 2008

P.S. Patwalia, T.S. Doabia, Jagjit Singh Chhabra, M.S. Doabia and Vibha Datta Makhija for the Appellant.

K.T.S. Tulsi, S.K. Gambir, H.K. Puri, U.M. Chauhan, Priya Puri and Praveen Chaturvedi for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. This Special Leave Petition and four other Special Leave Petitions have been filed against the judgment and order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated 11th September, 2006, whereby the order of the Sessions Judg~, Bhopal, framing charges against the accused under Section 304Part111.P.C. in Sessions Trial No. 212 of2005was set aside and directions were given to frame c_harge-only under Section 323/34 I .P.C. As all the Special Leave Petitions arise out of the common judgment of the High Court, the same are being heard together. Leave is accordingly granted in all the five Special Leave Petitions (Crl.) Nos. 6010 and 5473 of 2006, I i= filed by Mrs. lndu Jain, No. 2132 of 2007 filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh, No. 2584 and 2588 of 2007 filed by the ac-cused.

2. In order to appreciate the different stands taken by the

different appellants in the matter, some relevant facts are re-produced hereinbelow which will have bearing on the final decision in these appeals.

3. On 14th July, 2004, officers of the Special Police Estab-lishment (Lokayukta), Bhopal, headed by Shri B.P. Singh and

Shri Mokham Singh Nain, who are the appellants in the appeals arising out of S.L.P. (Crl) No. 2584 and 2588 of 2007 and ac-cused in the complaint filed by Ms. lndu Jain, the appellant in the appeals arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos. 6010 of 5473 of 2006, set trap for one Shri R.K. Jain, Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Bhopal, and arrested him for taking bribe of Rs.2,000/- from one of Mr. Chhajed, Tax Consultant, at 5.30 p.m. On 15th July, 2004, prior to 9 a.m. Shri Jain was found uncon-scious in the bathroom of the office of the Lokayukta, Bhopal, and was taken to Hamidiya Hospital, Bhopal, for treatment. The [records ][of ][the hospital show that when Shri Jain was brought to ]the ho$pital at 9 a.m. on 15th July, 2004, his body had neither any pulse nor respiration and recordable blood pressure and even heart sounds were absent. Though resuscitation measures were undertaken, including cardiac pulmonary resuscitation [(C.P.R.), there was little response and Shri Jain was declared ]dead at 1.30 p.m. on the same day.

· 4. The Post Mortem examination of the dec~ased, which

was conducted on 15th July, 2004, itself, at about 4 p.m. re-vealed certain injuries on the body, which included broken ribs, but the cause of death was shown to be on account of asphyxia within six hours ~f the post mortem examination.

5. On completion of investigation, the investigating agency

filed charge-sheet before the trial court on 12th May, 2004, and on 1 Sth July, 2005, the learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the five accused persons, namely, B.P. Singh, Mokham Singh Nain, Badri Nihale, Ramashish and Silvanus Tirki under Section 304 Part-II 1.P.C., but dropped the charge under Section 330 1.P.C.

6. Aggrieved by the framing of charge under Section 304

Part 111.P.C., accused Mokham Singh Nain filed Criminal Revi-sion No. 1203 of 2005, while the other four accused filed Crimi-nal Revision No. 1204 of 2005, before the Madhya Pradesh High Court -at Jabalpur. On the other hand, on account of the dropping of charges under Section 330 l.P.C. Mrs. lndu Jain,

PRADESH & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J]

'r widow of the deceased, filed Criminal Revision No. 1114of2005. All the revisional applications were heard together by the High - Court which by its order dated 11[1]h September, 2006, set aside the charge framed by the learned Sessions Judge and directed that charge could only be framed under Section 323/34 1.P.C.

7. As mentioned hereinbefore, these five appeals have

been filed against the said judgment and order of the High Court.

8. Appearing in these appeals on behalf of Mrs. lndu Jain,

the widow of the deceased, Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned Senior counsel submitted that the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court impugned in these appeals, was quite clearly against the Police Report submitted under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was submitted that from the arrest memo of the deceased in connection wit!\ Crime No. 97 of 2004 it would be very clear that accused B.P. Singh while arresting the deceased recovered two inhalers from his person, but allowed the deceased to retain them as he was suffering from Asthma. However, during his overnight custody in the office of the Lokayukta, Bhopal, he was kept in room, which was wholly unsuitable to person suffering from asthma.

9. Over the condition of the deceased while in the custody of the Special Police Establishment (Lokayukta) who had ar-rested and detained him in the office of the Lokayukta on 14th July, 2004, and his discovery in an unconscious condition in the morning of 15th July, 2004, report was lodged by the Station House Officer of Kohefiza Police Station on the basis whereof First Information Report under Section 330 l.P.C. was regis-tered. In addition to the above, written report was also made by Shri Akhilesh Jain, brother of the deceased to Kohefiza Po-lice Station in which it was alleged that the accused persons had arrested the deceased and had taken him to an unknown -( [destination· from where he was brought to Hamidiya Hospital in ]a serious condition, and, ultimately, succumbed to his injuries. It was alleged that the accused persons had tortured the de-ceased on account of which he had died.

10. Mr. Patwalia submitted that once R.K. Jain was de- ·t

clared to be dead, as part of the investigation into the offence complained of, Shri O.P. Dixit, the Senior Scientist of the mo-bile unit of the District Police Force, made physical inspec-tion of the room in the office of the Lokayukta where the ac-B cused had kept the deceased in custody before his death and submitted report of his inspection. In his report Shri,Dixit cat-egorically mentioned the fact that the condition of the room was not at all suitable for detaining person suffering from respi-ratory disease such as asthma, in custody. He plainly indicated that the room in question was completely unsuitable for such patient as it was filled with dust and cobwebs and the deceased was treated unhumanly and against the principles of ethical human conduct. Shri Dixit also observed from the report of the Forensic Science Labora,tory, thatitis evident that the conduct of the accused was one of gross.negligence and misdemeanor. It was further observed that for person who Was suffering from asthma, the deceased ought not to have been left alone inside the unhygienic room and at least someone, such as family member or friend, should have been allowed to remain present with him. Shri Dixit recommended appropriate action to be taken against the accused for dereliction of duty, which was duly supported by the report of the Forensic Science Labora-tory.

11 Mr. Patwalia submitted that having regard to the fact that the accused persons were police officers belonging to the Special Establishment of the Lokayukta and also having regard ~ to the nature of the offence, the investigation of the case was handed over from the local police to the Criminal Investigation' Department (CID) and upon completion of the investigation charge-sheet was submitted before the trial court on 12th May, 2005, and, asmentioned hereinbefore, on perusal of the mate-rial on record, the learned Sessions Judge on 15h July, 2005, .,_. " framed charges against all the five accused under Section 304 Part 11 IPC but dropped the charge under Section 330 IPC.

12. Mr. Patwalia submitted that when the materials on

record clearly indicated that R.K. Jain had died because of deliberate ill-treatment and negligence at the hands of the ap-pellants, while in their custody, the High Court had erred in com-ing to the conclusion th_§it the said materials did not disclose an offence under Section 330 IPC. Mr. Patwalia submitted that apart from the evidence of physical torture of the deceased, which a· would be supported by the post-mortem report, the opinion of Dr. Satpathi, who conducted the post-mortem examin~tion is that R.K. Jain's death was on account of asphyxia, namely, oxy-, gen hunger on account of choking. According to Mr. Patwalia the cause of death fitted in with the report submitted by Mr. Dixit on the basis of which the First Information Report came to be recorded.

13. Mr. Patwalia urged that in spite of the evidence avail-

able at the stage of framing charge, the High Court turned blind eye to the physical condition of the deceased and the in-different manner in which he was treated and kept in custody in the office of the Lokayukta in conditions which- triggered the asthmatic attack which ultimately led to the death of R.K. Jain in custody. Mr. Patwalia urged that although sufficient material was available before the High Court for framing charge under Sec-tion 304 Part II IPC, along with the charge under Section 330 IPC, the High Court quite erroneously dropped the charge un-der Section 304 Part II and also Section 330 IPC and observed that only charge under Section 323/34 IPC had been estab-lished under the aforesaid report. Mr. Patwalia submitted that the order of the High court impugned in the appeal was liable to be set aside with direction to the trial court to consider afresh the framing of charges under Sections 304 Part II and 330 !PC, along with the charge under Section 323/34 IPC.

14. As far as the other appeal filed by Ms. lndu Jain is

concerned, the arguments made in this appeal will also cover the points raised in the said appeal.

15. In the appeal filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh,

Ms. Vibha Dutta Makhija, learned counsel, contended that this

Awas not only case for framing of charge under Sections 323,with Section 34 thereof, but this is fita case where chargesought to have been framed against the accused under Sec-tionshe deceased 302 and R.K. 330 IPC Jain as had well. been Repeating arrested the and manner thereafter in which kept[ ©]Bin custody of the Special Police Establishment attached to theLokayukta office, Ms. Makhija reiterated the findings of Mr. Dixitwhich pointed to the direct involvement of all the accused per-

sons in the commission of the offence.

16. According to Ms. Makhija the bare facts of the inci-Cdent which occurred with the arrest of R.K. Jain on 14" July,2004, establish the fact that Shri Jain died while inthe custodyof the Special Police Establishment and it was yet to be provedon evidence as to how R.K. Jain died on account of asphyxia.when he was detained in the office of the Lokayukta. Ms.DMakhija also pointed out that when the deceased had beenbrought to the Hamidiya Hospital in Bhopal at 9 a.m. on 15%July, 2004, his body did not record any pulse or respiration orblood pressure and there was no heart sound either. Ms. Makhija__-submitted that although he remained In such condition till heEwas declared to be dead at 1.30 p.m., there was almost noresponse from R.K. Jain even after being administered car-diac pulmonary resuscitation. He continued to remain in suchcondition till he was formally declared to be dead. Ms. Makhija_submitted that by keeping the deceased, who suffered fromfrespiratory problems, in closed room without windows whichwas clearly uninhabited for long time on account of the dustand cobwebs collected therein which triggered an asthmaticunder Sections 302 and 330 IPC had been made out againstattack which led toR.K. Jain’s death, clear case ofan offenceGthe appellants. Counsel’s submissions were fully supported bythe report, which showed six injuries on the person of the de-ceased. Injury No.1 was contusion on the scalp. InjuryNos.2.and 3 were lacerations on the lip and mouth. Injury Nos. 4 and 5were broken ribs, while injury No.6 wasa laceration on the neckof the deceased.

17. Ms. Makhija contended that this being clear case of custodial death on account of the treatment meted out to the deceased by detaining him in wholly unhygienic conditions com-pletely unfit for patient of asthma, both the trial court as well as the High Court erred in not framing charge against the appel-lant and the other accused persons under Section 330 IPC. The matter was further confounded by the order of the High Court quashing the charge against the accused persons under Sec-tion 304 Part 11 IPC.

18. On legal submissions, Ms. Makhija submitted that the opinion of the doctor at the time of framing charges cannot be conclusive and the same would have to be considered at its face value during the trial itself. Ms. Makhija submitted that at the stage of framing charge, the Court is not required to go into detailed examination of the material filed by the Investigating agency under Section 173 Cr.P.C. At the said stage, the Court, on perusal of the materials before it, is only required to find out whether prima-facie case is made out to proceed against the accused. Ms. Makhija submitted that it is settled law that the High Court should not ordinarily interfere with the framing of charges by the trial court, unless some glaring injustice is no-E ticed.

19. Ms. Makhija referred to the decision of this Court in Om Wati (Smt.) and Anr. Vs. State, [2001 (4) SCC 333] in sup-port of her aforesaid submissions. She also referred to the de-cision of this Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Salman Salim [F ]Khan, [2004 (1) SCC 525] wherein this Court cautioned the trial court as well as the High Court regarding arriving at deci-sion as to the sufficiency or otherwise of the material to frame charge, as the prosecution case gets pre-empted to that extent since during the course of trial, even if the Magistrate comes to different conclusion, it may not be possible for him to pass orders accordingly. The learned Judges observed that there was limitation to the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and though it is open to the High Court to quash charges framed by the trial Court the same could not be done by weighing the correctne<.>s or sufficiency of the evidence. It was further, observed by this Court that it is only at the stage of_ trial that the truthfulness, sufficiency and acceptability of the evi-dence, can be adjudgect · ·· -·

20. Ms. M~khija lastly referred to the three-Judge Bench

decision of this Court in St~te of Orissa vs~ Debendra Nath Padhi, [2005 (1) SCC 568] in which the question decided dif-ferently in the case of Satish Mehra vs. Delhi Administration, [1996 (9) sec 766] was referred to. In Satfsh Mehra's case, two Judge Bench. of this Court had decided that at the stage· of framing of charge, the trial Judge was competent to look into the material produced on behalf of defence at the time of fram-ing of charge in order to come to d,ecision as to ·whether it was at all necessary to frame charges on the material produced on behalf of the prosecution as well as the defence. Answering the reference in the negative, the three-Judge Bench overruled the view expressed in Satish Mehra's case and held that at the °" said stage of framing charge, the Court was only required to look into the material produced on behalf of the prosecution in deciding whether particular case was fit to go to !rial.

21. Ms. Makhija, while questioning the decision of the learned Sessions Judge to drop charges against the accused persons under Section 330 IPC, submitted that neither the Ses-sions Court nor the High Court even thought of framing charge under Section 302 IPC against the accused persons.

22. Appearing for the accused in the appeal filed by lndu

Jain, who are also the appellants in the appeals arising out of SLP(Cr No. 2584 and 2588 of 2007, Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, learned senior counsel, submitted that the· order of the High Court did not call for any interference since the charge-sheet does not disclose the ingredients of the charge framed against the ac-cused persons under Section 323/34 IPC. Mr. Tulsi submitted that there is no direct evidence that the accused persons had ever assaulted the deceased and the First Information Report shows that R.K. Jain died due to asphyxia. Referring to the state-

• ['-1 ]

PRADESH & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J]

ment of Dr. Satpathi who had examined the deceased, and was also one of the doctors who conducted the Post Mortem ex-amination Mr. Tulsi submitted that the broken ribs and the lac-eration marks on both sides- of the lower lips were the result of attempts made in the Hospital to resuscitate the deceased. It was submitted that the opinion of the Medical Experts and the Post-Mortem Report established that R.K. Jain died on account of asphyxia and that he had obstructive lung disease which block the airways and his death was, therefore, natural and- not on account of any violence while in custody.

23. Mr. Tulsi submitted that apart from the above, Dr. V.K. [c ]

Sharma, Professor and Head of the Department of Medicine, Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal, whose opinion was sought for by the CID, Police Head Quarters, Bhopal had indicated that the fracture of the ribs could have been caused while exter _. nal cardiac massage or CPR was being administered to R.K. Jain iii an attempt to revive him. Dr. Sharma also stated that the · fracture of ribs can also be caused while external cardiac mas-sage, with artificial respiration and chest compression, was being undertaken. 1-!e also opined. in his Report that ~evere attack of asthma could result in the condition in which R.K.Jain was found and such attack could have been triggered by heavy mental tension, dust, cobwebs cold weather or the presence of allergens in the atmosphere and pollution.

24. _, Mr. Tutsi submitted that in view ·--------of the circumstances in ~ -- - ---F which R.K. Jain was arrested and thereafter kept detained· in -the office of the Lokayukta, the constable who formed part of:_ the raiding party had been suspended for dereliction-of duty but was ultimately reinstated, as in the preliminary inquiry the charge __ of negligence and dereliction of .duty waS, held not to have been proved. Mr. Tutsi referred to the Judgment and order passed by the learned-Sessions Judge c;m 28h July, 2005, while deciding the question as to whether there was sufficient ground for fram-ing charge against them under Section 330, 323/34 and 304(2) Indian Penal Code. Referring to paragraph 14 of the order, Mr. Tutsi pointed out that the learned Sessions Judge had himself

held that it could not be definitely said that no cause of death had been indicated in the Post-mortem Report. In fact, on be-half of the Investigating Authorities, letter was written on 16[1]h July, 2004 to the Director, Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal, asking for information as to whether nature of the injuries on deceased R.K.Jain were simple or grievous in nature or whether in ordinary circumstances, the death of the deceased could have been on account of injuries found on the deceased. The most pertinent question that was asked was as to what was the cause of death. In the reply sent by Dr. Satpathi, Director of the Medi-c [cal Legal Unit ][of ][the Hospital, it was mentioned that the injuries ]found on the body of the deceased were simple in nature which were not sufficient to cause death. It was stated that death was due to asphyxia. In fact, in the said letter, Dr. Satpathi by way of footnote indicated that injury Nos. 2,3,4 and 5 on the lips and ribs on both sides of the body had been caused in the Hospital during treatment and it had no relation with the death of R.K. Jain.

25. In support of his aforesaid submission, Mr. Tulsi re-ferred to the well-known Bhopal Gas Tragedy case, namely, [Keshub Mahindra vs. State of ][M.P., ][[1996 (6) SCC 129], in which ]while considering the provisions of Section 299 and 304 Part II IPC, it was observed that the accused must have done an act which caused the death of person with the knowledge that by such act he would likely to cause death. While considering the width of the powers that could be exercised by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in relation to Sections 227 and 228 • thereof, it was held that at the stage of framing of charge the Court had nojurisdiction to go into the merits of the allegations, which could be gone into at the time of the trial, but at the same time before any charge could be framed under Section 304 Part II, the materials on record must at least prima-facie show that the accused is guilty of culpable homicide and that the act ~ which had caused the death of the victim had been caused at least with the knowledge that such act was likely to cause death.

26. Mr. Tulsi submitted that though there was no definite

INDU JAIN v. STATE OF MADHYA

conclusion as to the manner in which R.K. Jain had died, at

least it was established that he died due to asphyxia which is the consequence of respiratory breathing problems which the deceased suffered from and had nothing to do with an offence under Section 323 IPC under which provision charge had been framed against the accused persons.

27. Mr. S.K. Gambhir, learned senior advocate appearing

for the respondent Nos. 5 and 6, while adopting the submis-sions made by Mr. Tulsi, added that from the sheet of Progress and Treatment given by the Hospital it will be revealed that R.K. Jain was brought to the Hospital at 9 a.m. in comatose condi- tion and that cardio respiratory resuscitation was started im-mediately and cardiac activity was regained after 15 or 20 min-utes. It was pointed out that the Progress and Treatment Given sheet also indicated that as part of the resuscitation attempts an endotracheal intubation was done, after which the deceased was placed on mechanical ventilator at about 10.15 a.m. However, inspite of the attempts made to revive R.K.Jain, he ultimately died because of choking of breath caused by respi-ratory breathing failure. Mr. Gambhir submitted that there was no material on record to indicate that R.K. Jain died homi-E cidal death so as to attract the provisions of Section 304 IPC. In short, Mr. Gambhir submitted that there was no material be-fore the learned Trial Judge for framing charge under Section 323/34 IPC against the respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6 .

28. Relying on the decision of this Court in the case of Kewal Krishan vs. Suraj Bhan & Anr., [AIR 1980 SC 1780] Mr. Gambhir claimed that Section 227 of the Code was meant to prevent prolonged harassment to an accused and if the Judge was not convinced that there was sufficient ground to proceed against the accused, he was required to discharge the accused and to record his reasons for doing so. In the said decision it was observed that at the stage of framing of charge, the Mag is-trate was not required to weigh the evidence as if he was the trial court. He was only required to see whether the complaint made out prima facie case triable by the Court of Session,

. _ which would be sufficient for issuing process to the accused and committing them for trial to the Court of Session.

' 29. Mr. Gambhir concluded_ his submissions by urging that

-in the ab$ence of any reliable material regarding the involve"'.' -ment of the respondent Nos. 4: 5 ~and 6 in respect of the charge under Section 323/34 IPC, the charge framed against the re-spond_en~s was liable to be quashed.

30. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective partie~, ·having particular ,regard to the fact that R.K.Jain had died while in the custody of the Offic-e ers of the Special Police Establishment (Lokayakuta), Bhopal, in· the office of the Lokayukta, Bhopal. -·

31. It has been sufficiently e!?tablished that the deceased - was patient of asthma which cou~ld cause-asphyxia which was . ultimately said to be the cause of R. K Jain's death. It is also 0. --clear that notwithstanding· his serious respiratory problem, the deceased was. kept in windowless room which was full of dust and cobwebs which are known allergens for triggering an asthma attack, which catl, be fatal, as in this case. The injuries _found on the body of the deceased may have been caused dur"'. · . · ing attempts at resuscitation, but all the said circumstances can only be considered dudng proper trial and not on the basis of surmises at the time of framing charge where on the strength of the charge sheet ~>nly prima facie satisfaction about the com-mission of an -Offence has to be arrived at·ny the trial court. F_ Therefore, while rejecting the submissions made by Mr. Tulsi and Mr. Gamb~ir that there were no materials on record to frame charge against the. accused persons even under Section 323/ 34 IPC, we cannot but observe that on prima facie view of the matter, there is ground to proceed ag~inst the accused per-sons even under Section 304Part 11 IPC. On that score, we are inclined 'to agree both with Mr. Patwalia and Ms. Makhija that the High Court had erred in quashing the charge framed against the accused persons under Section 304 Part II and observing that in view of the materials on record only charge under Sec- . tion 323 could be brought against the accused persons.

32. Although, Ms. Makhija has strenuously urged that

charge under Section 302 IPC should also have been framed against-the accused persons, we are not inclined to accept the same as at this stage there is little to.establish an intention on the,part of the ace.used to willfully cause the death of R.K. Jain.

33. As has been observed in Kewal Krishan's case (su-

pra), at the stage offraming of charge, the Court is not required to go into the details of the investigation but to only arrive at prima facie finding on the materials made availatlle as to whether charge could be sustained as recommended in the charge sheet. The same view has been subsequently reiter-ated in Devendra Padhi's case (Supra) and in the case of Bharat Parikh vs. Union of India, [2008 (1) Scale page 86] wherein the holding of mini trial at the time of framing of charge has been deprecated.

34. This brings us to the next question as·to whether the ·

Trial court as well as the High court was justified in dropping the charge under Section 330 IPC since R.K. Jain's death took place while he was in custody. The important question is whether prima facie case can be said to have been made out for·a charge to be framed under Section 330 IPC. Since the cause of death has been shown to be asphyxia on account of deten-tion of the deceased in unhygienic conditions despite his res-piratory problems and the injuries to the ribs and mouth of the deceased could possibly have been caused by the attempts made by the doctor at the Hospital to resuscitate the deceased, who had been brought to the Hospital in comatose condition, with the body showing no signs of pulse, respiration or blood pressure, prima facie case is made out for framing of charge under Section 330 IPC. The sheet showing the progress and treatment of the accused on arrival at the Hospital, also cor-G roborates the same and it also mentions the fact that cardiac pulmonary resuscitation was immediately started and the pa-· tient wa_s also put on mechanical ventilator as part of the at-tempts at resuscitation. Apart from indicating that the patient

[2008] 14 S.C.R.

had died of asphyxia, the medical opinion does not give any reason tor such asphyxia and even in reply to the queries made on behalf of the investigating authorities the reply received from Dr. Satpathi, as to the cause of death, was that it had occurred due to asphyxia, but as to how it had occurred was under inves-

[tigation. ]

35. In this regard, the materials submitted by the lnvesti-

gating Authority in its Final Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. does establish the fact that the deceased had been kept in room which was highly unsuitable for person suffering from respiratory problems. In fact, as was indicated by Shri O.P. Di~it, the Senior Scientist of the Mobile Unit of the District Police Force the condition of the room where the deceased had been de-tained was completely unsuitable for patient of asthma as it was filled with dust and cobwebs which wsis sufficient to trigger an asthmatic attack which could have caused asphyxia which ultimately led to R.K. Jain's death.

36. We are, therefore, convinced that the appeals filed by

lndu Jain and that filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh must be allowed in part. We, accordingly, allow the same and set aside the order of the High Court impugned in these appeals. While restoring the order of the learned Ses&ions Judge tram-ing charge against the accused persons under Section 304 Part II IPC, we also direct that charges also be framed against the accused persons under Section 330 Indian Penal Code.

37. The three appeals filed by Ms. lndu Jain and the State of Madhya Pradesh are allowed to the aforesaid extent.

38. As far as the appeals arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2584 and 2588 of 2007 filed by the accused are concerned, the same are dismissed.

Appeals disposed of

\ L. 'r-