The Bombay High Court allowed an appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 10.08.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, by which the appellant was held guilty for the charge under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to imprisonment for life.
The Court observed that the court is expected to analyze the report and is also expected to re-read it in conjunction with other evidence on record and thereafter draw inferences.
Brief Facts:
The deceased, wife of the accused, died while undergoing treatment. Initially, Accidental Death was registered. On receipt of medical opinion, more particularly the autopsy doctor’s opinion, it was revealed that death was due to smothering and manual strangulation. On receipt of such opinion, the police officer himself registered the crime and on the strength of the same, an investigation was carried out after arresting the accused. After completion of the investigation, he was duly charge-sheeted and was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
After hearing both sides and appreciating the evidence, the learned trial Judge reached a finding that the accused is responsible for the death of Ujwala. The Court held that it was homicidal death and the accused being in the company of the deceased, by virtue of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, was held responsible for her death, and thereby convicted and sentenced.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The learned counsel for the Appellant pointed out that firstly, there is no direct eye witness and the entire case of prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. It was his submission that in such factual background, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to first establish the death of Ujwala to be nothing but homicidal. He submitted that medical evidence adduced by investigating machinery is not clear and cogent about the mode of death.
He strenuously contended that the FIR was lodged only on the strength of medical opinion which too was received after two years or so, after conducting postmortem, and thus, the case of prosecution ought not to have been accepted by the learned trial Judge. Further, there was no iota of evidence regarding motive.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the accused was the only person in the company of his wife. She was in his custody. She had met unnatural death. The accused was expected to offer a plausible explanation for the unnatural death of his wife while she was in his custody, and the accused having failed to discharge the burden as to how his wife met death while she was with him in a room, the accusation was rightly raised against him by the investigating machinery, and conviction arrived at by learned trial Judge cannot be faulted at.
Observations of the Court:
The Court observed that the doctor admitted that after examination, no conclusion could be drawn about the specific cause of death. After the postmortem, no opinion about the final cause of death was issued. The record shows that the CA report was issued on 08.04.2013, which was said to be dispatched on 23.08.2011, whereas the final opinion of the cause of death was issued on 31.10.2013 i.e., after almost two years after postmortem.
The Court said that it is expected of the autopsy doctor to elaborate and justify the findings and conclusion arrived at, which was not done in the case at hand. The autopsy doctor’s opinion prevailed over the learned trial Judge for accepting the case of prosecution about the death of Ujwala to be a homicidal one. However, medico-legal expert evidence is mere opinion evidence. The opinion would not have a binding effect if it is not supported by sound reasons and is not convincing. The court is expected to analyze the report and is also expected to re-read it in conjunction with other evidence on record and thereafter draw inferences.
The Court remarked that medical evidence is not free from doubt and is shrouded with various unexplained circumstances. With such quality of medical evidence on record, the learned trial Judge ought not to have straightaway accepted the medical evidence to hold the case of prosecution as proved.
The decision of the Court:
The Bombay High Court, allowing the appeal, held that the Judgment and conviction awarded to the appellant stand quashed and set aside.
Case Title: Rajeshwar Marotrao Biradar vs The State of Maharashtra
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Vibha Kankanwadi & Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Waghwase
Case no.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 549 OF 2016
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Satej S. Jadhav
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. R. D. Sanap
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
