Important Points
1. Where post mortem was conducted after eight days of death and body was in decomposed form, and the doctor opined on basis of internal contusion that death was due to strangulation but there was no external injury corresponding internal contusion nor there was any ligature mark and hyoid bone was not fractured, it could not be said that death was due to strangulation since contusion found by doctor could be due to swelling caused during process of decomposition.
2. Sufficient weightage should be given to the evidence of the doctor who has conducted the post mortem, as compared to the statements found in the text books, but giving weightage does not ipso facto mean that each and every statement made by a medical witness should be accepted on its face value even when it is self-contradictory.
3. Motive being a double-edged weapon, could cut both ways-helping or harming both the prosecution and the defence.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302-Murder-Conviction on basis of circumstantial evidence-Legality of-Allegation that accused caused death of wife by strangulation-Prosecution witnesses initially convinced that deceased died out of accidental fire and body buried without post mortem-Subsequent exhumation and post mortem after 8 days on suspicion that accused caused death - Prosecution witnesses deposing several circumstances implicating accused- Post mortem report stated cause of death to be strangulation and cerebral anoxia-Prosecution suggestion that contusion noticed by autopsy doctor was not caused by external pressure but due to swellings caused during process of decomposition-Hyoid bone not fractured-No external injury corresponding to internal contusion-No ligature marks - Authorities on medical jurisprudence probablises prosecution suggestion - Reasonable doubt in regard to cause of death exist-Benefit of doubt given to accused-Conviction set aside.
       Held : From the statements found in various text-books referred to above, notwithstanding the disagreement of PW-8, we will have to conclude that there is a possibility of the existence of swellings occurring in a decomposing body, similar to the one noticed by PW-8 which give rise to appearances suggestive of strangulation. There is a reasonable possibility that the contusions noticed by PW-8 are those swellings which could have been caused due to decomposition of the body of Jabeena. Therefore, these suggestions of the defence made to PW-8 cannot be lightly brushed aside. More so, in the background of the fact that PW-8 had conducted the post mortem on Jabeena’s body nearly 8 days after it was buried, and admittedly even according to PW-8, the body of Jabeena had decomposed considerably at the time of the post mortem examination. This is coupled with the fact that she has admitted in her evidence that she has no other authoritative text to contradict or support her, as against the statements found in the text books like the “Lyon’s Medical Jurisprudence”, Parikh’s text book on Medical Jurisprudence, The Essentials of Forensic Medicines by Dr. K.S. Narayana Reddy. (Para 17)
       We have examined the evidence of PWs. 1 to 7 who speak of the factum of the relationship of the appellant with Jabeena and various possible motives the appellant could have had for causing the death of Jabeena. First of all, we should notice the fact that on the date of the death of Jabeena, none of these witnesses entertained any doubt as to the complicity of the appellant in the death of Jabeena. They proceeded on the basis that Jabeena died an accidental death and even persuaded the investigating authorities to release the body without a proper post mortem. Therefore, the court will have to be very cautious while appreciating their evidence. Assuming that the evidence of PWs 1 to 7 can be accepted by the courts, it would only conclude that the appellant had a motive to kill Jabeena, but then it could also given a reason for PWs. 1 to 7 to depose falsely against the appellant, in view of the tragic death of a loved one. Motive being a double-edged weapon, could cut both ways - helping or harming both the prosecution and the defence. Hence, we are of the considered view that if we are unable to place reliance on the evidence of PW-8, then the evidence of PWs. 1 to 7 will not be sufficient to convict the appellant of the prosecution charge. Of course, the prosecution has established that the appellant was the only person in the company of Jabeena and her child at the relevant time on the fateful day. But this again stops the prosecution case in the realm of suspicion, which by itself cannot be substituted for hard evidence. Aware as we are of the fact, a budding life came to an unfortunate premature end, our jurisprudence will not permit us to base a conviction on the basis of the evidence placed by the prosecution in this case and the benefit of a reasonable doubt must be given to the appellant. (Para 20)
       (ii) Medical jurisprudence-Evidence of post mortem doctor vis a vis statements in authoritative text books-Sufficient weight must be given to doctor’s evidence-Medical witness cannot be accepted on its face value even when it is self-contradictory.
       Sufficient weightage should be given to the evidence of the doctor who has conducted the post mortem, as compared to the statements found in the text books, but giving weightage does not ipso facto mean that each and every statement made by a medical witness should be accepted on its face value even when it is self-contradictory. (Para 19)
       (iii) Medical jurisprudence-Death due to strangulation-Post mortem conducted after 8 days of death-Doctor’s report that death was due to strangulation and cerebral anoxia-No external injury corresponding to internal contusion-No ligature mark on dead body-Hyoid bone not fractured-Brain found liquified-Prosecution suggestion that contusion found by doctor was caused by not by external pressure but due to swelling caused during process of decomposition - Prosecution suggestion supported by authorities on medical jurisprudence. (Para 17)

Judgment

Santosh Hegde, J.-The appellant in the above appeal was charged with an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. before the VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Madras in S.C. No. 83/86 who found him guilty of the said offence and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. His appeal before the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1054 of 1986 came to be dismissed and he is now in appeal before us by special leave.

2. The prosecution case stated briefly against the appellant is that he was married to one Jabeena on 29th January, 1984 and after the marriage for some time they resided in an independent house. In the year 1985, Jabeena gave birth to a male child in her parents house and thereafter the appellant came to live in the house of his father-in-law Mohd. Ahamed (PW-1) in the house bearing Door No. 22, 11th Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Madras. The said house contained one bed room in the ground floor which was occupied by PW-1’s elder daughter and her husband. Out of the four bed rooms on the first floor, one bed room was occupied by PW-1 and his wife, the second bed room next to that was occupied by the appellant and Jabeena with their child, the third bed room was occupied by two unmarried sons of PW- 1 and the fourth bed room was lying vacant.

3. On 27.12.1985 at about 6.00 a.m. the wife of PW-1, by name Maliga Ahmed, (PW-3) heard the continuous cries of Jabeena’s child, hence, she came to the room of the appellant and knocked on the door of the room. It is alleged that the appellant got up and opened the door and on being asked by PW-3, he gave the child to her and closed the door of his room. A short while after, it is stated that the appellant shouted for PW-3 who went to the room of the appellant, when the appellant pointed out to PW-3 the bathroom where Jabeena was found lying with the upper part of her body having become black on account of burning. The appellant is supposed to have told her that Jabeena suffered the burns while heating the water on the stove.

4. The further case of the prosecution is that on hearing the cries of PW 3, PW 1 came to the said room and he also found Jabeena lying on the floor and when he tried to find her pulse, he found her to be dead. Immediately, thereafter the family tried to call a Doctor by name Dr. Aziz Rehman over the phone but he was not available. It is further alleged by the prosecution that on the persuasion of the appellant, Jabeena was given a bath by her mother PW 3 and her eldest sister, Abeeda Altaf (PW-4) during which time the appellant was found cleaning the bed and changing the bed-sheet.

5. It is contended by the prosecution, thereafter, PW 1 along with his friend Syed Asim went to Kumaran Nagar, Police Station and gave a report which is marked as Ex. P.1. On the basis of the said report the Officer In-charge of the said Police Station who has been examined as PW 10 registered a Crime No. 981/85 under Section 174 of the Cr. P.C. PW-10 then sent the necessary report to the concerned authorities. On coming to know of the incident, the Inspector of Police PW 11 took up the investigation and reached the scene of occurrence about 9.50 a.m. and prepared an observation Magazar and scene sketch as per Ex. P-18 and 19. PW 11 thereafter held the inquest of the dead body of Jabeena (Ext. P-20) and seized MO’s 1 to 4 and 7 to 10.

6. It is the case of the prosecution that on a request made by PW 1, the father of Jabeena, who believed that Jabeena had died due to an accident no post-mortem was conducted and hence PW-11 released the body of Jabeena to PW-1. On that very day Jabeena’s body was buried in the Ammeerunnissa Begum Muslim Burial ground.

7. The prosecution further states that as per the religious custom, the third day rites of the deceased were conducted. After these rituals, it is alleged that the appellant left the house of PW-1 and went away to his parental house taking all his belongings with him.

8. The prosecution further alleges that t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document