Form No. J (2)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak And The Hon’ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas M.A.T. 1233 of 2025 IA NO: CAN/1/2025 Subhash Chandra @ Chandara Paik vs.

The State of West Bengal & ors.

With M.A.T. 1235 of 2025 IA NO: CAN/1/2025 Shasanka Sekhar Das @ Sasanka Das Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

For the Appellant in MAT 1233/2025 : Mr. Billwadal Bhattacharyya, Sr. Advocate Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee, Advocate Ms. Sagnika Banerjee, Advocate Ms. Sarmistha Basak, Advocate Mr. Tamoghna Pramanick, Advocate For the Appellant in MAT 1235/2025 : Mr. Kallol Mondal, Senior Advocate Mr. Krishan Ray, Advocate Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee, Advocate Mr. Souvik Das, Advocate Mr. Anamitra Banerjee, Advocate Ms. Sagarika Banerjee, Advocate For the State in MAT 1233/2025 &

MAT 1235/2025 : Mr. Kishore Datta, Ld. A.G.

Mr. Swapan Banerjee, Advocate Ms. Sumita Shaw, Advocate Mr. Soumen Chatterjee, Advocate For the Union of India in MAT 1233/2025 &

MAT 1235/2025 : Mr. Dhiraj Trivedi, Sr. Advocate Ld. D.S.G.I.

Mr. Arijit Majumdar, Advocate Heard & Judgment on : 05.08.2025 DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-

1. Two appeals are taken up for analogous hearing, as issues involved are similar. Prayer for second Post Mortem Report made by the writ petitioners was not allowed by the learned Single Judge in the two different writ petitions.

2. Primary issue involved in both the appeals is whether a Constitutional Court should grant the relief of a second Post Mortem.

3. Two persons expired in an incident on July 12, 2025.

4. Two complaints were lodged with regard to such death. Police registered two separate First Information Reports with regard to the two complaints. Police are investigating both the cases as of murder.

5. Police initially registered unnatural death case in respect of both deceased. Police ensured that, Post Mortem on the bodies of two deceased were held.

6. Post Mortem Reports of the two victims are on record. Appellants as de facto complainants are dissatisfied with the Post Mortem Reports of the respective victims. Essentially, they claim that the Post Mortem Reports do not specify the actual cause of death. The Autopsy Surgeon failed to note the essential features appearing on the body of the victims.

7. In M.A.T. 1233 of 2025, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant contends that, the Post Mortem Report does not take into account the nature of injuries found on the body of the victim. In support of such contention few photographs of the dead body are relied upon. The Post Mortem Report is contrasted with the photographs to suggest that injuries appearing on the body were not noted in the Post Mortem Report. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that, a second Post Mortem Report is required in order to unearth the truth.

8. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant in M.A.T. 1233 of

2025 relies upon 2020 SCC OnLine Cal 2013 (Gita Rani Roy & Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.) in support of the proposition that, second Post Mortem Report can be directed. In fact, he submits that, in Gita Rani Roy & Anr. (supra) the High Court, directed a third Post Mortem to be conducted.

9. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant in M.A.T. 1235 of

2025 submits that, the victim was murdered alongwith the other victim involved in M.A.T.1233 of 2025. He submits that, a second Post Mortem Report of the victim involved in M.A.T. 1235 of 2025 is imperative in view of the fact that both the victims went to attend a particular occasion together and were found dead by their relatives subsequently. Cause of death is required to be unearthed and that a second Post Mortem would assist such discovery.

10. Learned Advocate General appearing for the State submits that, a second Post Mortem should not be directed as a matter of course. He submits that, there is no material on record to suggest that, the first Post Mortem Report is insufficient or incorrect. None of the appellants ever complaine