Back
2006 Supreme(Cal) 757
High Court Of Calcutta
PRAVENDU NARAYAN SINHA AND PARTHA SAKHA DATTA, JJ.
SUNIL SINGHA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
C. R. A. 1 Of 1998
Decided On : 12/01/2006
MOLOY BHATTACHNR, Puspal Satpati, SAMIR CHATTERJEE, SHILADITYA SANYAL
The opinion of a medical expert who conducts a post-mortem examination is more reliable than the opinion expressed in an inquest report prepared by a non-expert, in determining the cause of death in a criminal case.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - MURDER - CONVICTION - EVIDENCE - MEDICAL EVIDENCE - INQUEST REPORT - OPINION OF DOCTOR - RELIABILITY - DELAY IN LODGING FIR - EFFECT.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for causing the death of his wife due to strangulation and poisoning. The victim's mother, P.W. 1, testified about the continuous physical and mental torture inflicted upon the victim by the appellant and his family members. P.W. 6, the victim's younger sister, witnessed the appellant and others dragging the victim from the first floor of their house on the day of her death. P.W. 14, a medical officer, conducted the post-mortem examination and found multiple injuries, bruises, and swelling on the victim's body, indicating strangulation and poisoning as the cause of death.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the medical evidence of P.W. 14 was reliable and sufficient to establish the cause of death as homicidal. The court rejected the argument that the inquest report, which did not mention the injuries found by P.W. 14, was more credible than the post-mortem report. The court also found that the delay in lodging the FIR was not significant enough to cast doubt on the prosecution's case, considering that the FIR was lodged by a village illiterate lady who was not familiar with legal procedures.
Issues: 1. Whether the medical evidence was sufficient to establish the cause of death as homicidal? 2. Whether the inquest report was more credible than the post-mortem report? 3. Whether the delay in lodging the FIR affected the prosecution's case?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the medical evidence of P.W. 14 was reliable and sufficient to establish the cause of death as homicidal, as it was based on a thorough examination of the body and was consistent with the injuries observed by other witnesses. 2. The court rejected the argument that the inquest report was more credible than the post-mortem report, as the inquest report was prepared by a non-expert who may have overlooked the injuries found by P.W. 14 during the post-mortem examination. 3. The court held that the delay in lodging the FIR was not significant enough to cast doubt on the prosecution's case, as the FIR was lodged by a village illiterate lady who was not familiar with legal procedures and there was no evidence of embellishment or coloring of the actual occurrence.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and order of the trial court, upholding the appellant's conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 28-11-1997 passed by the learned Additional sessions Judge, First Court, Bankura convicting the appellant on account of the offence under section 302, IPC and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year in Sessions trial No. 3 (12) of 1995 arising out of Sessions case No. 13 (9) of 1992.
( 2 ) THE mother of the victim Tusurani samanta of village Kuldangar, P. S. Bishnupur in the district of Bankura lodged an ejahar with the O. C. Bishnupur P. S. at 18-15 hours on 27-5-1991 alleging the following facts : her daughter Parulbala who was married to the appellant in the month of Falgoon, 1390 B. S came to be subjected to physical and mental torture by the appellant, appellant's brother Ajit Singha and appellant's mother Saktibala (since deceased ). Sometimes she was denied food. When her daughter would come to her house she would report to her about the torture and when she (FIR maker) would go to her daughter's-in-house she would narrate to her the incidents of torture. Considering her daughter's future conjugal life she would persuade the appellant and the members of his family to lead the family in good condition but the members of his daughter's in law's house without paying any heed to the advice of the village people used to inflict torture upon her daughter from time to time. On 25-5-1991 her daughter was physically assaulted in the morning without any cause and at 4 p. m. her daughter was compelled to take poison. The members of her daughter's-in-law's house did not take any measures for her treatment.
( 3 ) ON the aforesaid facts Bishnupur P. S. Case No. 27 dated 27-5-1991 under Section 498-A/306, IPC was registered against the appellant, his brother Ajit Singha and mother Saktibala Singha (since deceased)and upon completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the aforesaid three accused persons vide charge-sheet No. 58 dated 7-11-1991 under sections 498-A/302/120-B of the IPC.
( 4 ) THE appellant and his brother Ajit singha were charged by the learned Additional sessions Judge. First Court, Bankura under Sections 498-A/306 of the IPC and o- these charges evidence of 14 witnesses wjs recorded. During the trial on 15-9-1997 the learned Public Prosecutor-in- charge of the case in the learned trial Court filed a petition before the learned Judge for recasting of the charge on the ground that the evidence disclosed a case under Section 498-A/302/34 of the IPC and charge-sheet was also submitted thereunder. The learned trial Court by the order dated 15-9-1997, upon hearing both the parties allowed the prayer of the prosecution and recast the charge to one under Section 302 read with 34, IPC observing that the charge under section 498-A, IPC was originally framed with the charge under Section 306, IPC. Accordingly, the amended charge was again read over and explained to the appellant who pleaded not guilty. Then appellant was allowed opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses which the defence did not think it necessary and accordingly further cross-examination or re-examination of the witness by the defence was declined. The followed the judgment of conviction and sentence with respect to the charge under Section 302/34 of the IPC.
( 5 ) THOUGH 14 witnesses were examined by the prosecution it is the evidence of P. W. 1 Smt. Tusurani Samanta, the de facto complainant, p. W. 6 Smt. Durga Samanta, younger sister of the deceased and P. W. 14 dr. D. K. Roy, the medical officer of bishnupur sub-divisional hospital who held post-mortem examination on the body of the deceased that alone call for critical examination so as to find out whether charge under Section 302 of the IPC can be said to have been proved.
( 6 ) BEFORE coming to the evidence of P. W. 1, P. W. 6 and P. W. 14 let us point out by way of passing reference evidence of the other 12 witnesse
