Ramesh Sinha, J. - (1.) THE present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing the order dated 29.08.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (E.C.) Act, Meerut in Sessions Trial No. 1057 of 2008 (State v. Sachin Malik and another), under Section 302/34, IPC, P.S. - Medical, District Meerut. The prosecution story in brief as set out in the FIR is that on 06.07.2004 at about 10.30 a.m. the complainant was informed by the Principal of Medical College, Meerut that his son Siddharth Chowdhary has died. On receiving the said information, the complainant rushed to the hospital of Medical College, Meerut and upon entering in the room of Sachin Malik, the informant did not found there the dead body of his son and further inquired about it, he was told that the dead body of his son was sent for post -mortem and is lying in mortuary. The informant was further informed that a complaint has already been lodged regarding the incident at the concerned police station but the same was not found to be true. The informant alleged that he was not shown the dead body of his son at the first instance and after much persistence, he was shown the dead body and after looking at the same, there were some visible injury on his body. The doctor who conducted the post -mortem has not mentioned in the post -mortem report about the said injuries. The informant has alleged in the FIR that there was some foul play and his son was murdered. The FIR of the incident has been lodged against four persons namely Sachin Malik, Amandeep Singh, Dr. Usha Sharma, Principal of Medical College, Meerut including the applicant.
(2.) THE FIR of the incident was lodged on 09.08.2004 by, opposite party No. 2, Dr. Surendra Singh Girwal at the Police Station -Medical, District Meerut. On 06.07.2004, the post -mortem of the deceased was conducted by Dr. Harpal Singh. According to the postmortem report of the deceased, the lungs of the deceased was congested and no ante -mortem injury was found on the body of the deceased. Moreover, the cause of death could not be ascertained hence viscera was preserved. The investigation was started and the statement of one Gyan Bahadur was recorded by the Investigation Officer on 10.08.2004, under Section 161 Cr.P.C. who was employee of the Medical College, Meerut and posted in the Mess of the College. He had stated that the deceased was drunkard and he would regularly turned up in the hostel in the drunken state and on the night of 05.07.2004 also he was drunken. The Investigating Officer after lapse of one month has recorded the statement of the informant on 29.08.2004. Dr. Surendra Singh Girwal, the father of the deceased who supported the version of the FIR and stated that the applicants and other co -accused persons had committed the murder of the deceased. The investigating officer also recorded the statement of Ravi Kumar, Vivek Gupta and Jai Prakash Gupta under Section 161, Cr.P.C. and all of them have stated that the deceased -Siddharth Chaudhary was drunkard and drug addicted and they further stated that on the date of incident some hot talk took place on telephone between the deceased and his parents and deceased earlier met with an accident in which he has received injuries on 27.04.2004. The statement of Dr. Harpal Singh, who had conducted the post -mortem, was recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. by investigating officer who had affirmed the finding recorded in the post -mortem report and further specifically denied there were any injuries on the body of the deceased. The investigating officer further on 10.10.2004 recorded the statement of one Siddharth, who has also supported the statement of Ravi Kumar, Vivek Gupta and Jai Prakash Yadav. The version which has been stated by them in the statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. the informant realising that the manner in which the local police was investigated the incident to be biased and not fair. He moved an application before U.P. Human Rights Commission for seeking transfer of the investigation on which the Human Rights Commission on 17.12.2004 has taken into account that the local police has not carried out the investigation in a fair manner. Hence, transferred the investigation of the case from local police to the C.B.C.I.D. The viscera report of deceased which was sent by the local police to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Agra and the viscera report dated 06.10.2004 shows that there was presence of Ethyl Alcohol in the body of the deceased. After the investigation was transferred to C.B.C.I.D., the investigating officer again recorded the statement of the informant on 25.02.2005 under Section 161, Cr.P.C. who reiterated the contents of the FIR and the first statement given to the local police. Similarly, the investigation officer recorded the second statement of Gyan Bahadur on 03.03.2005 and also Shaligram and Rishu Sangal Chaudhory Shekhar, who have stated that the deceased was a drunkard. Similarly, the Investigating Officer of the C.B.C.I.D. recorded the statement of Sri. Ajit Kumar and Siddharth, Gyan Bahadur on 04.03.2005. The I.O. recorded the statement of one Firsat Hussain who also stated that the deceased was drunkard and the deceased was never seen accompanying the co -accused Amandeep Singh. The C.B.C.I.D. on 15.03.2005 again recorded the statement of Dr. Harpal Singh who had conducted postmortem of the deceased under Section 161, Cr.P.C. The investigating officer has also recorded the statement of one Rajiv Kaushik who had conducted the inquest proceedings and also stated that there was no visible injury on the body of the deceased. On 01.04.2005 the investigating officer further recorded the statement of Dr. Ajit Singh who was uncle of the deceased and Saiddi Azad who was driver of the informant and both of them suggested that the deceased was regular drunkard and also in habits of taking drugs etc.
(3.) ON 21.04.2005, the statement of Dr. Vijay Agrawal, Parag Agarwal, Ravi Kumar, Mrinal Rathi and Onkar Singh were recorded who had stated that the deceased was annoyed with his parents over the telephone on the night of the incident and Parag Agarwal, who was one of the witnesses of inquest has mentioned that there was no visible injury on the body of the deceased and the said fact was also stated by the witness Ravi Mishra and Om Prakash on 12.06.2005. The statement of second doctor namely Dr. M.K. Gulathi was recorded by investigating officer who supported the postmortem prepared by Dr. Harpal Singh. The investigating officer of C.B.C.I.D after the said investigation submitted the final report on 15.02.2006.;