Doctor Who Did Post-Mortem Deposed That Death Was Natural: SC Upholds Discharge Of Murder Accused
The Supreme Court upheld the order of discharge passed by the Sessions Court in a murder case, saying that the High Court completely ignored the deposition of the doctor who conducted post-mortem that death was natural.
The Court was deciding an appeal filed by the accused against the judgment of the Single Judge of Madras High Court by which a revision application was allowed and the case was remanded to the Additional District and Sessions Judge for holding trial.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said, “The High Court, even after referring to the post-mortem certificate, has completely ignored the doctor's evidence. Hence, the impugned judgment and order cannot be sustained, and the same is set aside.”
Advocate Senthil Jagadeesan appeared on behalf of the appellants while Advocate B. Balaji appeared on behalf of the respondent.
In this case, the Sessions Court had passed an order granting discharge to the appellants in the exercise of powers under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The husband of the deceased had challenged such order by filing a revision application which was allowed by the High Court. The said husband had died during the pendency of revision application and hence, the respondent was his son.
The respondent’s father had lodged an FIR alleging the commission of offences under Sections 341, 323, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the appellants. The FIR was based on an incident that happened in 2004 in which the complainant’s (respondent’s father) wife was alleged to have kicked on her chest and stomach by the accused. She was declared dead in the hospital and thereafter, the doctor deposed that her death was natural as there were no external injuries on her body.
The Supreme Court in view of the above facts observed, “After having perused the order of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge dated 9th January 2009, we find that a mini-trial was not conducted. The Court has considered the case within four corners of its limited jurisdiction under Section 227 of the CrPC.”
The Court further noted that the incident is of October 9, 2004 and the significance of the post-mortem certificate is that it records that there were no ante-mortem injuries present on the body of the deceased.
“The evidence of Dr. R. Vallinayagam examined by the respondent himself is the most material. The doctor reiterated that in the post-mortem examination, he did not notice any external injuries on the body of the deceased. … Thus, the expert witness examined by the respondent, who admittedly carried out a post-mortem on the body of the deceased, has categorically stated that the death of the deceased was natural. This is coupled with the fact that there were no external injuries found on the body of the deceased”, it said.
The Court also observed that in the post-mortem, no injury was found on the chest or any other part of the body of the deceased and therefore, there was no material to proceed against the appellants in the private complaint filed by the respondent’s father. It added that even according to the case of the respondent’s father, there was a dispute between him and the appellants over the property, and the incident occurred when, as per the order of the Civil Court, an attempt was made to survey the property through a government surveyor.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and restored that of the Sessions Court.
Cause Title- Ramalingam & Ors. v. N. Viswanathan (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 45)
Appearance:
Appellants: Advocates Sajal Jain and Sonakshi Malhan
Respondent: Advocate S. Arun Prakash
