Approximate Time Of Death In Post-Mortem Report Cannot Be Applied With Mathematical Precision; Only A Range Can Be Provided: Orissa HC

The Orissa High Court observed that the approximate time of death in a post-mortem report cannot be applied with mathematical precision. The Court also highlighted that the the exact time of death cannot be fixed by any method, but only an approximate range of death can be given, that too will have considerable biological variations in individual cases.

In that context, the Bench of Justice SK Sahoo and Justice SK Mishra observed that, "The approximate time of death as indicated in the post mortem report cannot be applied as something of mathematical precision. Time since death is an important objective of post-mortem examination which connects an accused to that particular moment of time to prove his guilt or innocence and plays a vital issue in investigation of medico legal cases."

It was further observed that, "The Investigating Agencies and the Judiciary should be made aware of the fallacy that the exact time of death cannot be fixed by any method, but only an approximate range of death can be given, that too will have considerable biological variations in individual cases."

Counsel Akshaya Kumar Sahoo appeared for the appellant, while Counsel Priyabrata Tripathy appeared for the respondent.

In this case, the prosecution argued that the appellant allegedly impregnated the deceased and later married her under the village panchayat's direction. After leaving for the appellant's village, the deceased went missing. The deceased's mother, upon visiting, discovered the bodies of the deceased and a newborn in a well. An FIR was filed, and the appellant was charged.

Following the investigation, the Trial Court found him guilty under IPC Sections 302, 315, and 201, sentencing him to life imprisonment.

The Court observed that the circumstances established by the prosecution did not form a complete chain so as to unerringly point towards the guilt of the appellant. In that context, it was further said that, "Since the possibility of the murder being committed by any third person cannot completely be ruled out, it would be very risky to accept the prosecution evidence to hold the appellant guilty of the offences charged. It is also well settled that suspicion, however grave may be, cannot be a substitute for a proof and the courts shall take utmost precaution in finding an accused guilty only on the basis of the circumstantial evidence."

In light of the same, the conviction of the appellant was set aside.

Cause Title: Maxi @ Maximus Soreng vs State of Odisha

Click here to read/download the Judgment