The court found no necessity for further interference based on available evidence from the second postmortem examination.

Pursuant to the earlier direction, on behalf of the AIIMS, Kalyani the second postmortem examination report has been handed over which was conducted on 24^th August, 2025. The opinion of the Board of Doctors who have conducted the second postmortem is as follows:

“V. Opinion:

The cause of death cannot be ascertained due to advanced decompositional changes and skeletonization. However, it is reserved until the reports of chemical analysis specimen is made available by the investigating officer.”

The report be returned to the investigating officer of the case and be kept along with the case diary. Copy of the same may be made available through the learned trial court to the de facto complainant or if the investigating officer so wishes he can rely upon the same in course of the trial of the case.

Having regard to the purpose for which the present writ petition was preferred and the opinion arrived at by the doctors of AIIMS, Kalyani who conducted the second postmortem report, I am of the view that at this stage further interference by this Court is unwarranted. Petitioners would, in such circumstances, if required, take a second copy of the postmortem from the learned trial court.

With the aforesaid observations, WPA 14334 of 2025 is disposed of.

There will be no order as to costs.

Case diary be returned to the learned advocate appearing for the State.

All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.