Injuries Insufficient To Cause Death: Gujarat HC Grants Bail To Police Officers Convicted For Murder Of A Boy At An Observation Home

The Gujarat High Court suspended the sentence and granted regular bail to three police officers convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment after being booked for the murder of an 18-year-old boy stated to have been belonging to the Scheduled Caste, in an observation home where he had been kept in 2020. 

In doing so, the Court relied on the post-mortem report and the cross-examination of the Medical Officer wherein it was admitted that the external injuries were simple and not sufficient to cause death.

The Petitioners had moved the high court in an application for suspension of their sentence and release on regular bail, during the pendency of their appeal challenging the sessions court March 7 order convicting the police officers under the Sections of 302 (Murder), Section 114 (The presence of an abettor at the scene of a crime) IPC and provisions of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The petitioners had been sentenced to rigorous life imprisonment. 

A division bench of Justice Ilesh J Vora and Justice SV Pinto in its order examined the case records and examination of the Medical Officer who had conducted the deceased's post mortem and had admitted during the cross-examination that the external injuries on the deceased were simple injuries and and the individual injuries were not sufficient to cause death. 

After considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the backlog of the appeals pending before the High Court, the chance of the appeal being heard in near future being remote, the role attributed to the petitioners, the evidence against them and the fact they have been in custody for a long time, the bench decided to suspend their sentence enlarging them on bail pending adjudication of their criminal appeal. 

The court ordered the petitioners to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs 25,000 with surety of the like amount subject to certain conditions. It thereafter disposed of the plea. 

It was stated in the plea that the complainant father's son was caught in an offence of theft and brought to the Observation and Safety Home from where he had absconded on February 3, 2020 and was found by the police thereafter and was handed over at the Observation Home. It was alleged that late at night, the convicted police officers took the minor to the second floor of the Observation Home had beat him with sticks and kicked him leading to serious injuries.

The complainant father claimed that he received a call on February 12, 2020 from the police that his son had been arrested and the next day he received a call and was informed that his son had expired. When he went to the hospital, he said, that he saw the injuries on the dead body of his son and came to know that his son was beaten and he had expired due to the injuries as he was physically and mentally tortured and beaten by the applicants.

The plea stated that the trial court had erred in arriving at its finding wherein the trial court had framed the issue whether the "prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt" that the deceased "aged 18 years died due to injuries sustained by the beating" of the accused police officers at the observation home. The plea claimed that the trial court erred in appreciating the evidence of the doctor who performed the deceased's post mortem who had said that the injuries were simple in nature. 

The Counsel for the police officers submitted that they have been in custody for over four years and seven months and the case against relies solely on circumstantial evidence which does not establish their guilt. It was argued that the postmortem report indicated that it was minor injuries and not the cause to death. He then submitted that there was no direct evidence linking the applicants to the offence, and their identification was based on assumptions. Additionally, the deceased had reportedly escaped from a Zonal Safety Home, and the injuries were caused while regaining custody, falling under less severe IPC sections (324-Voluntarily causing hurt on provocation or 330-Voluntarily causing hurt to extort confession, or to compel restoration of property). 

The Counsel appearing for the State opposed the bail arguing that the trial court rightly convicted the applicants as they committed serious offence and further requested to dismiss the application.

Case Title: Vishnukumar Laxmanbhai Prajapati & ORS. v/s State of Gujarat & Anr.

Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr Ankit Modi, Mr Kishan Chakwawala, Advocate
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Rajesh Deval, Advocate 
Counsel for the State: Mr Jay Mehta, APP

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 199