Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
This Writ Petition For Mandamus Is Filed ... vs Unknown on 29 August, 2022
Author: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
Bench: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
WRIT PETITION No.6810 of 2022
ORDER:-
This Writ Petition for mandamus is filed to declare the inaction of respondents 1 to 3 - police officials in conducting re- postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased by name Nasar Vali to elicit the involvement of the real culprits who indulged in brutal murder of the husband of the petitioner in spite of written representation, dated 27.12.2021, as illegal, unjust and consequently sought direction to respondents to conduct re- postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Nasar Vali and to alter the Section of law in relation to F.I.R No.186 of 2020.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.
A person by name Nasar Vali (hereinafter called as 'deceased') was found dead by hanging on 04.10.2020. The writ petitioner is the wife of the deceased. After the death of the deceased, police initially registered F.I.R under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Inquest was held over the dead body of the deceased and thereafter autopsy was held over the dead body of the deceased. In the inquest report, it is opined that there are injuries on the forehead of the deceased, right shoulder, below the neck, on the left thigh and right arm. The Doctor, who conducted autopsy, opined in his final opinion report that no poisonous substance was found in the viscera and he opined that to the best of his knowledge that the deceased might have died due to 'asphyxia caused due to hanging'. 2
On the basis of the said postmortem report and after completion of the investigation, the police found that it is a case of suicidal death. Therefore, charge sheet was filed in Crime No.186 of 2020 of Narsaraopeta II Town Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 506, 306 r/w 34 IPC alleging that as the accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide after he was beaten that the deceased committed suicide by hanging.
Now, the grievance of the writ petitioner, who is the wife of the deceased, is that admittedly there was a quarrel between the deceased and the accused before his death and the accused beat the deceased and he sustained injuries on his body. Therefore, it is stated that it is a case of murder and not a case of suicidal death and the police did not conduct proper investigation in this case. Therefore, the petitioner sought re-postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased to find out whether the deceased died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the hands of the accused in the quarrel that took place prior to his death or not. A written representation appears to have been submitted on 27.12.2021 by the petitioner before the police and it is stated that the said representation is not considered. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing this instant Writ Petition seeking direction to conduct re-postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased to ascertain whether the deceased died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the hands of the accused in the quarrel took place prior to the death of the deceased or not.
Counter has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It is stated that the investigation revealed that the deceased committed 3 suicide and that the accused have abetted him to commit suicide and as such a case under Section 306 IPC was registered and charge sheet was filed to that effect. It is stated that the accused did not commit murder of the deceased and the Doctor, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, also did not opine that it is a homicidal death or that the injuries that are now pointed out in the inquest report resulted in death of the deceased.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would mainly rely on the injuries that are mentioned at page No.19 of the inquest report found on the dead body of the deceased at the time of inquest. On the basis of the said injuries found on the dead body of the deceased, he would submit that it is essential to conduct re- postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased to find out whether he died on account of the said injuries or not. This Court does not find any merit in the said contention. As noticed above, the following injuries are noticed on the dead body of the deceased during inquest. They are mentioned as follows in the inquest report.
"Gayalu: 1. Nudhiti pai erraga rendu angulala vruttakaram lo erraga kandhudu gayam 2. Kudi cheyi bhujam krindha erraga, nallaga, 5 angulala kandhudu gayam 3. Medaku kudi vaipu 6 angulala podavutho ara angulam vedalpu tho orusukupoyina charmam nallaga unna gayam 4. Edama kalu thoda venuka dokudu gayam 5. Kudi cheyi manikattu vadda chinnapaati moodu gatlu padi unnayi. 6. Mukkulo dhoodhi petti unnadhi".
Therefore, only two injuries on the forehead of the dead body, one injury on the right shoulder, one injury on the neck of the deceased, injury on the left thigh, injury on the right arm are found on the dead body of the deceased. All the aforesaid injuries are superficial injuries found on the body. They are also not on the vital parts of the body of the deceased. They are not fatal injuries which may result into death of a person in the ordinary course of 4 nature. Further, the Doctor, who conducted autopsy, did not opine that the deceased died on account of the aforesaid injuries sustained by the deceased. Therefore, it cannot be said that the deceased died on account of the aforesaid injuries sustained by the deceased in the quarrel that took place prior to the death of the deceased. There is no valid material placed before this Court to prima facie establish that the aforesaid injuries resulted into death of the deceased. Medical evidence is also not supporting the said contention. Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, absolutely no case is made out by the petitioner to order for any re-postmortem examination as sought for.
Although it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the deceased did not commit suicide and the accused have killed him by hanging him, the said contention has no basis at all. No such specific plea is also taken in the Writ Petition. No other prima facie evidence whatsoever is also produced to substantiate the said contention. Even according to the petitioner, nobody has witnessed the accused hanging the deceased and thereby killing him. Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, there is no impending need to order for any re-postmortem examination as prayed for in this Writ Petition.
Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
______________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Date: 29.08.2022 AKN 5 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY WRIT PETITION No. 6810 of 2022 Date: 29-08-2022 AKN