Bhanwar Singh, J.

1. This is the second bail application-the first having been rejected vide this Courts Order of 7th August, 2002, passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 3256 (B) of 2002. The prosecution case against the applicant, Raja Ram Jaiswal is that he had throttled the informants brother Brijesh Kumar to death, while the latter was coming to his home after collecting mustard oil in a rickshaw. The applicant, Raja Ram Jaiswal was driving a handcart, which collided with the rickshaw of Brijesh Kumar and although the collision was minor, yet it resulted in an altercation between the two. The applicant was so enraged under the passion of heat and anger that he strangulated Brijesh Kumar to death.

2. Mr. Virendra Bhatia, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant has submitted twofold argument before this Court. Firstly, that the fracas between the two was the result of sudden provocation, which is indicative of the fact that the applicant had neither any motive to cause his death nor he had any intention to eliminate the informants brother.

3. Secondly, the delayed death, despite throttling, rules out the theory of strangulation as in a case of throttling, it does not take more than a minute for the victim of occurrence to die ; while in the case in hand, Brijesh Kumar died in the hospital.

4. So far as the Medical Jurisprudence regarding strangulation is concerned, learned Counsel for the applicant relied upon the opinion of a Medical Jurist Alfred Swaine Taylor as recited in his book Taylors Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence. The author has, on page 286 (13th edition), observed that in case where the obstructive process appears to have been less forcibly applied, or possibly intermittent, and the hypoxial features are pronounced, it again might be considered reasonable to suggest that these are more compatible with a longer period of time but unlikely to have exceeded one minute.

5. Learned Counsel for the applicant has also referred to Modis Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (21st edition) wherein it has been opined at page 195 that if the windpipe is compressed so suddenly as to occlude the passage of air altogether, the individual is rendered powerless to call for assistance, becomes insensible and may die instantly.

6. Also a reference was made to the Medical Jurisprudence of Jhala and Raju (5th edition). At page 265, the author has opined that various factors like malice, vengeance and increased irritability, frustration due to resistance encountered are to be kept in mind while dealing with a case of throttling.

7. As a matter of fact, at this juncture of the second bail application being considered, the entire medical evidence is not before the Court. It is only the autopsy report, a perusal of which appears to indicate that the death of the victim had taken place due to asphyxia as a result of throttling. The larynx, trachea and bronchi-all were congested. The lungs were also congested. When the doctors evidence comes before the Court and he is in a position to explain every material aspect of throttling and the result of the force used by the assailants, then alone the Court would be in a position to arrive at a definite conclusion. There is nothing before the Court to scrutinise as to how much pressure might have been exerted on the throat of the victim and for how long. At this stage, the prosecution case cannot be brushed aside merely because the victim did not die within one minute of the alleged throttling. It will be clear from the evidence that will be adduced before the Court as to what was the duration in which the assailants kept on pressing the throat and neck of the deceased. Certainly, the pressure, i.e., the force used, duration and the resistance offered by the victim would be the dominating factors to arrive at a definite conclusion. The points with reference to the Medical Jurisprudence, as referred to above, by the learned Counsel for the applicant can be looked into only after the entire factual and medical evidence is led by the prosecution in support of its case. This does not seem to be the right stage for the scrutiny in view of the scanty material before the Court.

8. As regards the motive and intention, it may be observed that the provocation by which the assailants have been driven or prompted to strangulate the victim of occurrence cannot be said, as can be observed at this stage, to be justified particularly to the extent of causing death. The intensity of provocation might have exceeded more than the natural form of human anger and rage. There are independent eye-witnesses, namely, Santosh Kumar Chaurasia, Sant Lal Agrahari and Madan Lal Chaurasia to support the prosecution story as laid in the First Information Report.

9. Considering all aspects of the matter in view, I am of the opinion that I do not find substantial material to revise and review, at least at this stage, my earlier order dated 7th August, 2002 and therefore, I hold that this bail application too is to be rejected.

10. Order accordingly.