The Jharkhand High Court allowed a criminal appeal and set aside the impugned judgement of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge as the prosecution has not been able to prove the charges for murder beyond reasonable doubt and further in a criminal trial it is important to prove the cause of death and for this examination of the doctor who has conducted the postmortem is necessary but the doctor was not examined in the case in hand.
Brief Facts:
In the present case, the appellants were convicted of the offense under section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment with hard labor by the Additional Sessions Judge for the murder of the informant's father. The appellants have filed this appeal challenging the verdict of their conviction.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The counsel for the petitioner argued that there were no specific claims regarding the assault and the injuries the deceased suffered. The inconsistency in the eye-witness testimony was highlighted, noting the absence of any mention to the Investigating Officer about the appellant using a hockey stick to strangle the deceased. The appellant's counsel also pointed out that the prosecution casually presented the Postmortem report without examining the doctor who performed the autopsy and created the report. Furthermore, the counsel emphasized that the prosecution failed to convincingly establish the cause of death. The court's assumption of death due to injuries is not supported legally. Additionally, the counsel noted the incompetence of the advocate clerk as a witness regarding the cause of death, especially since he admitted during cross-examination that he had no experience working with the doctor who conducted the postmortem.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The counsel for the respondent drew upon the testimony of the informant in the case. This was done by referencing the case of "Kuriya and another vs State of Rajasthan." In this case, it was established that "The testimony of an eyewitness, if found to be credible, should not be disregarded simply because the witness is related to the deceased. However, if the witness is entirely untrustworthy, their statement may be ignored by the court." Additionally, regarding the preference of oral evidence over medical evidence, the counsel cited the same case, "Kuriya and another vs State of Rajasthan," where it was held that "…except in situations where it is completely incompatible with the medical evidence, oral testimony should be given precedence."
Observations of the Court:
The Bench observed that the doctor who performed the postmortem examination on the deceased was not examined by the prosecution and did not appear for examination. This was noted in the case of Sowan Kisku, where the court highlighted that if the doctor who conducted the autopsy and issued the postmortem certificate is not examined, then a compounder is not qualified to testify about the cause of death. In this instance, the court also pointed out that under Section 293 Cr.P.C., documents deemed as reports from Government Scientific Experts, submitted for examination or analysis in the course of proceedings, are admissible as evidence. However, Postmortem reports do not fall under the category defined in sub-section (4) of Section 293, Cr PC.
In the current case, the doctor who conducted the Postmortem examination was not examined, despite the report indicating asphyxia due to strangulation as the cause of death. Furthermore, the clear testimonies of two daughters of the deceased and two of his wives, stating that the deceased was alive when brought home and died there, lead to the conclusion that the cause of death has not been established beyond reasonable doubt.
The Hon’ble Court observed that the cases of Sowan Kisku and Raju Mahto reinforce the necessity in a criminal trial to substantiate the cause of death, which requires the examination of the doctor who conducted the postmortem. However, this crucial step was not taken in the present case.
The decision of the Court:
The court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction order.
Case Title: Khaito Oraon vs. The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand)
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ratnaker Bhengra and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath
Case No.: Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 66 of 1999
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. A.K Chaturvedy
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. V.K. Vashistha
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
