Back
High Court Of Jharkhand
Judgename : N. DHINAKAR, C. J. AND M. Y. EQBAL, J.
SOWAM KISKU - Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR (NOW JHARKHAND) - Respondents
Cri. Appeal 205 Of 1988 (P)
Decided On : 01/05/2006
Indian Penal Code - Murder - Section 302, Section 149 - Evidence Act - Section 60, Section 293, Section 294 - The judgment discusses the failure of the prosecution to establish the cause of death of the deceased and the inadequacy of medical evidence. It highlights the importance of examining the doctor who conducted the autopsy and the limitations of using a compounder as a witness for the post mortem certificate. The judgment also emphasizes the procedural requirements under Section 294 of the Cr. P. C. and the classification of reports of scientific experts under Section 293(4).
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were accused of causing the death of an individual by beating him with weapons. The prosecution failed to establish the cause of death of the deceased and could not provide sufficient medical evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution did not fulfill the necessary requirements to establish the cause of death and failed to provide adequate evidence. As a result, the conviction of the appellants was set aside, and they were acquitted.
Issues: Failure to establish cause of death, inadequacy of medical evidence, procedural requirements under Section 294 of the Cr. P. C.
Ratio Decidendi: The prosecution must establish the cause of death, and the failure to examine the doctor who conducted the autopsy and fulfill procedural requirements can lead to the inadequacy of evidence.
Final Decision: The conviction of the appellants was set aside, and they were acquitted.
( 1 ) THE appellants, ten in number, were arrayed as accused before the trial Judge with the allegation that at about 6. 30 p. m. on 18-8-1983 they caused the death of Dugu Ram Das Kisku by beating him with Lathi, Bhala, Farsa and Tangi. The learned trial Judge, finding" the appellants guilty under Section 302 Indian Penal Code (shortly 1pc), sentenced each of them with the aid of Section 149, IPC to undergo imprisonment for life. The present appeal is against the said conviction and sentence.
( 2 ) THE facts of the case are: at about 6. 30 p. m. on 18-8-1983, the deceased Dugu Ram Das Kisku was returning from his village Hatia accompanied by his brother PW. 1 Betka Kisku. When he was reaching the house of Bihar Kisku (appellant No. 7), all the appellant surrounded him and PW. 1 and attacked him with the weapons which they had in their hands. PW. 1 managed to escape but Dugu Ram Das kisku suffered injury and died at the spot. Thereafter, the information of the incident (Ext. 1) was given by PW. 1 to Godda (Mussafil) Police Station at about 9. 00 a. m. on 19-8-1983 on the basis of which FIR (Ext. 2) was registered. Investigation of the crime was taken up by the PW. 9, the Police Officer.
( 3 ) PW. 9 visited the scene of occurrence and prepared the seizure-lists of the articles scattered at the place of occurrence and the bloodstained sand found at the spot (Exts. 4 and 4/1) respectively. He conducted inquest and prepared inquest report (Ext. 3 ). The witnesses were examined at the time at the time of inquest. After inquest, the body was dispatched to the hospital with a request to the doctor to conduct autopsy.
( 4 ) ON receipt of the requisition, the doctor attached to Government Hospital, Godda, conducted post mortem and he found seven injuries on the dead body. A certificate (Ext. 5)was issued by the doctor. Thereafter the investigation continued and after the completion of the investigation, final report was filed against the appellants.
( 5 ) THE appellants, on being questioned under Section 313, Cr. P. C. on the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, denied all the incriminating circumstances. They did not examine any witness on their side.
( 6 ) THE case of the prosecution is that the deceased Dugu Ram Das Kisku died at about 6. 00 p. m. on 18-8-1983 on account of the injuries inflicted upon him by the appellants. It was, therefore, necessary for the prosecution to establish the cause of death of the deceased Dugu Ram Das Kisku.
( 7 ) ACCORDING to PW. 9, after the Inquest was conducted, the dead body was sent to the hospital for post mortem examination. Before the trial Court the post mortem certificate, issued by the doctor was marked as ext. 5 through PW. 11 who was a compounder attached to the hospital. The prosecution did not examine the doctor and, therefore, the contents of the document, Ext. 5, was not proved by the prosecution through PW. 11 as he was only a compounder. In fact, in the cross-examination, pw. 11 admitted that he was not even present when the post mortem was conducted by the doctor and that he was also not present when the doctor signed the post mortem certificate. He went on to say that he had no knowledge even about the opinion expressed by the doctor in the postmortem certificate (Ext. 5) marked by him.
( 8 ) WE are unable to understand as to why the prosecution did not choose to examine the doctor. It is no doubt true that in spite of the steps taken, the prosecution could not procure the attendance of the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body, but that could not have precluded the prosecution from examining some other doctor from the same hospital who knew the handwriting and signature of the doctor who conducted autopsy. If any other doctor had been examined who knew the signature of the doctor who conducted autopsy and if he had given evidence as to the nature of the post mortem done and the injuries found by the doctor on the dead body, then the appellants
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
