2016 (12) TMI 1848 - SC - Indian Laws

Murder - Respondent No. 1 fired upon his brother-in-law Vishnu from his revolver and thereafter Sombir also fired upon Vishnu - Sections 148 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act - HELD THAT - The Medical Professionals namely Dr. Munish Prabhakar and Dr. K.S. Sachdev extended medical asylum to the Respondent without there being any reason or medical condition justifying prolonged admission of the Respondent as an indoor patient as a cover to defeat the Orders passed by this Court and the Trial Court as stated above and thereby aided and assisted the Respondent in violating the Order of this Court. By such conduct these Medical Professionals have obstructed administration of justice. The Respondent guilty of having violated the Order dated 24.10.2013 passed by this Court and for having obstructed administration of justice. We also hold Dr. Munish Prabhakar and Dr. K.S. Sachdev guilty for having helped the Respondent in his attempts and thereby obstructing administration of justice. Having held so we could straightaway have imposed appropriate punishment under the Act. However we deem it appropriate to grant one more opportunity to these contemnors. The Respondent has not filed any affidavit nor tendered an apology. At the same time for Dr. K.S. Sachdev Managing Director of the company that owns the hospital is said to be 76 years of age. Considering the fact that these are medical professionals with sufficient standing the ends of justice would be met if one more opportunity is granted to them to present their view on the issue of punishment. In the circumstances we direct presence of these three contemnors on January 2 2017. Role of the police officials - HELD THAT - The conduct exhibited by the concerned police officials in not ensuring compliance of the Orders passed by the Trial Court calls for strict administrative action. The actions in that behalf have already been initiated and for the present we rest content by observing that the disciplinary proceedings shall be taken to logical end and the guilty shall be brought to book. We request the Director General of Police of Haryana and the Home Secretary to look into the matter and ensure that the departmental proceedings are taken to logical end at the earliest. The status report/action taken report in that behalf shall be filed in this Court within three months from the date of this judgment. Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Violation of Supreme Court's order dated 24.10.2013.
2. Non-execution of non-bailable warrants.
3. Role of hospital and medical professionals in aiding the accused.
4. Conduct of police officials in ensuring compliance with court orders.
5. Liability and punishment for contempt of court.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Violation of Supreme Court's Order Dated 24.10.2013:
The Supreme Court's order dated 24.10.2013 in Criminal Appeal No. 1834 of 2013 set aside the bail granted to the respondent and directed him to surrender to custody forthwith. The respondent, however, did not comply with this order and instead got himself admitted to a hospital, thereby evading arrest. The court found that the respondent's actions constituted willful disobedience and obstruction of justice, making him liable for both civil and criminal contempt.

2. Non-Execution of Non-Bailable Warrants:
The trial court issued multiple non-bailable warrants against the respondent, which were not executed. Orders dated 20.11.2013, 05.02.2014, 15.03.2014, 16.04.2014, and 14.05.2014 indicate repeated failures by the police to arrest the respondent. The court noted that despite the presence of prosecution witnesses, no statements could be recorded due to the respondent's absence. The police's inaction and failure to locate the respondent were seen as aiding his evasion of arrest.

3. Role of Hospital and Medical Professionals:
The respondent was admitted to Privat Hospital, Gurgaon, for an extended period without any medical justification. The hospital's conduct, particularly that of Dr. Munish Prabhakar and Dr. K.S. Sachdev, was scrutinized. The court found that the hospital provided medical asylum to the respondent, allowing him to evade arrest. The hospital's failure to discharge the respondent despite medical certificates indicating he was fit to be produced in court was seen as obstructing the administration of justice. The court held both Dr. Prabhakar and Dr. Sachdev guilty of aiding the respondent in violating the court's order.

4. Conduct of Police Officials:
The police officials' failure to execute the non-bailable warrants and their lack of action in locating the respondent were criticized. The court noted that the police's conduct exhibited a callous attitude and helped the respondent evade arrest. The disciplinary proceedings against the concerned police officials were initiated, and the court requested the Director General of Police of Haryana and the Home Secretary to ensure these proceedings are taken to their logical end.

5. Liability and Punishment for Contempt of Court:
The court found the respondent guilty of contempt for willfully disobeying the court's order and obstructing justice. Dr. Prabhakar and Dr. Sachdev were also held guilty for aiding the respondent. The court considered granting one more opportunity for these contemnors to present their views on the issue of punishment. The court directed the presence of the contemnors for further proceedings and requested a status report on the disciplinary actions against the police officials.

Conclusion:
The judgment highlights the serious implications of willful disobedience of court orders and the role of various actors in obstructing the administration of justice. The Supreme Court emphasized the need for strict compliance with its orders and took a firm stance against those who aided in evading the law. The case underscores the importance of accountability for both individuals and institutions in upholding the rule of law.