Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

[b] Investigation in this case was taken over by N.Ramadoss [P.W.29] the Inspector of Police, who went to the place of occurrence on the same day and in the presence of Karthikeyan [P.W.11] and Jeyaraman [P.W.12] prepared an Observation Mahazar [Ex.P23] and also Rough Sketches [Exs.P24 and P25]. From the place of occurrence, the Investigating Officer seized a blood stained knife [M.O.1] and other articles under the cover of Mahazar [Ex.P26]. The walking stick [M.O.3] that was used by the deceased was also found in the place of occurrence and it was seized under the cover of Mahazar [Ex.P27]. Certain SIM cards were also seized from the place of occurrence. In the place of occurrence, he examined Padmanaban [P.W.1], Subathira [P.W.2] wife of P.W.1, Kolanchinathan [P.W.3], Manoharan [P.W.4] and Kishorekumar [P.W.15] and thereafter, in the presence of panchayatdars conducted inquest over the body from 3.30 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. The Inquest Report was marked as Ex.P28. He also requisitioned the services of P.W.28, the police photographer, who came to the place of occurrence and took photographs which were marked as M.Os.18 to 35. The Compact Discs were marked as Exs.P36 and P37. The body was sent through Rajavel [P.W.20] Head Constable, to the Government Hospital, Thittakudi for post-mortem where Dr.Jeganath [P.W.24] performed the autopsy over the body. Dr.Jeganath [P.W.24] in his evidence as well in the Post-mortem Certificate [Ex.P20] stated as follows:

"The body was first seen by the undersigned at 1.00 P.M. on 02.09.10. Its condition then was RM passed off all four limbs. Post mortem commenced at 01.00 P.M. Appearances found at the post-mortem of a male Body, lying on its back well nourished eyes closed, mouth partially opened. The body was decomposed state, Blister present all over the body, Maggots present, Gaseous swelling present all over the body, skin peeled off. External injuries:
(1) Laceration over the below left clavicle 3x2 cm (2) Laceration over the left side neck 2x3 cm (3) Laceration over the Anterior aspect of ne4ck (1)3x3cm (2) 3x3cm (3) 3x3cm (4) Laceration over the above manubrium sterni size (1) 2x3cm (2) 2x3cm (3) 2x3cm (5) Laceration over the right chin 3 x 2 cm (6) Laceration over the right cheek 2 x 3 cm (7) Laceration over the right clavicular region 4 x 5 cm (8) Laceration over the right shoulder joint 1 x 2 cm (9) Laceration over the left side forehead 4 x 4 cm x bone depth (10) Laceration over the near left wrist joint 5 x 5 cm x bone depth (11) Laceration over the left Temporal region 5 x 3 cm x bone depth (12) Laceration over the posterior aspect of neck 2 x 2 cm (13) Laceration over the behind right Ear near mastoid process 2x3cm x bone depth (14) Laceration over the near right Ear 3 x 3 cm x bone depth Internal injuries: Fracture left Rib 6,7, Heart-pale, Lungs-Pale, Stomach contents 50 Ml of Brownish liquid present. Liver-pale preserved, spleen congested, Kindey-pale, preserved intestine distended with gas. Bladder-emplty, Skull-intact. Hyoid bone-intact. Brain liquefied necrosis present.

13. This argument of Mr.A.Padmanaban, learned counsel that, as the Post-mortem Doctor had not specifically stated which of the injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death would automatically result in the offence falling out of the net of Section 300 IPC is indeed fallacious. This fallacy stems from the hypothesis that, the evidence of a post-mortem doctor is substantive evidence, vis-a-vis, the fact-in-issue. The evidence of a post-mortem doctor is only a relevant fact and that by itself cannot determine the fact-in- issue. Sir Stephen, the author of the Indian Evidence Act in his Magnum Opus, "The Indian Evidence Act with an Introduction on the Principles of Judicial Evidence" [London: Macmillan and Company, 1872], has pointed out the distinction between a Scientific enquiry and a judicial enquiry. A Scientific Enquiry in a laboratory begins with a cause and goes to find its effect. In a laboratory, the cause can be created again and again in order to study the effects. In a judicial enquiry, the cause is studied from the effect and one cannot re-create either the effect or the cause. To quote Stephens "If we wish to know what happened two thousand years ago, when specific quantities of oxygen and hydrogen were combined, under given circumstances, we can obtain complete certainty by repeating the experiment; but the whole course of human history mush recur before we could witness a second assassination of Julius Caesar."

The Post-mortem Doctor is an Expert under Section 45 of the Evidence Act and based on the injuries found by him on the body, he gives his opinion about the cause of the death. This is relevant under Section 7 of the Evidence Act. He traces the cause from the effect. In other words, the fact-in-issue is, whether "A" murdered the deceased and the effect of murder is the death of the deceased. From the dead body, by a process of reverse engineering, the Post-Mortem Doctor decides the cause of death, that too 'in his opinion'. This is not conclusive proof of that fact, because it is once again the opinion of the expert which has been made relevant by Section 45 of the Evidence Act. Similarly, when the post-mortem doctor notes the sex, the age of the deceased, they become relevant under Section 9 of the Evidence Act. The evidence of the post-mortem doctor is not a substantive piece of evidence to prove the fact-in-issue, but they are substantive evidence to prove the facts relevant under Sections 7 and 9. When there is direct evidence to prove the fact-in-issue, for example, if an eye witness says that he saw five accused cut the deceased at five specified points, and if five injuries in those specified points are noted by the post-mortem doctor during autopsy, then we say that the evidence of the eye witness has been corroborated by the evidence of the post-mortem doctor that he found the injuries on the said places.