Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. When the matter is taken up for enquiry, the counter has been filed by the second respondent. Now according to the counter, following the death of the deceased, the case had been registered in Crime No.2144/2020 under Section 176(1-A) Cr.PC in Virudhachalam Police Station. Further it is stated that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore had nominated the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Virudhachalam, for conducting the enquiry contemplated under Section 176(1-A) Cr. PC. It is also put forth that following the direction of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Virudhachalam, the postmortem was conducted by a team of qualified doctors as per the http://www.judis.nic.in guidelines of the NHRC and the same was videographed and the post mortem had commenced at 3.00 p.m on 06.11.2020 and ended at 4 p.m. and thereby it is contended that since the postmortem had been done under the supervision of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Virudhachalam, there is no necessity for re-postmortem as prayed for and denied that the deceased had been taken to illegal custody on 28.10.2020 itself. Whereas, according to the respondent police, he had been taken to custody in crime No.1073/2020 dated 30.10.2020 only on 30.10.2020 at 10.40 a.m and produced before the Magistrate at 11.45 P.M. According to the police, only after the remand, as the deceased is found to be suffering from epilepsy and the same had also been confirmed by the petitioner, accordingly he was advised for further treatment and on account of the another attack of epilepsy by the deceased, he was immediately rushed to the Government Hospital,Virudhachalam and was declared dead by the duty doctor and thereby the postmortem had been done by the doctors as above mentioned.

5. Now according to the petitioner's counsel, when she had alleged that her husband had been taken to unlawful custody on 28.10.2020 itself, the case of the prosecution that he had been arrested only on 30.10.2020 can http://www.judis.nic.in be taken only with a pinch of salt. It is further put forth that the petitioner is having materials to substantiate the abovesaid allegation. Further it is stated that the petitioner's husband had been subjected to cruelty at the hands of the respondent police, particularly, the officials of the DSP Office Crime Team as aforestated and thereby only on account of the injuries inflicted on her husband by the police officials, her husband's death had occured and with a view to suppress the same, the police had hurriedly conducted the postmortem for hiding the cause of death of her husband and thereby tampered with the evidence and therefore, put forth that this Court, considering the unique facts and circumstances of the case, should direct a re-postmortem of the deceased as per law for culling out the truth. As aforestated, the State Public Prosecutor reiterated the contentions put forth in the counter and contended that the postmortem had been conducted by the competent doctors in accordance with the directions of the Magistrate and there is no necessity for ordering re-postmortem as prayed for by the petitioner and therefore prayed that the relief sought for by the petitioner for re-postmortem need not to be entertained and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. In the light of the abovesaid factors, when a serious doubt has been raised with reference to the cause of death of the deceased, namely, the petitioner's husband during custody, the petitioner alleging that her husband died only due to the injuries meted out to him by the torture and illtreatment caused by the police officials and though according to the respondent police the deceased had been taken to custody only on 30.10.2020 at 10.40 a.m. and produced before the Magistrate at 11.45 p.m for remand, however, no proper explanation has been assigned as to why there is a delay in producing the accused /deceased at 11.45 p.m. when he is alleged to have been arrested at 10.40 a.m. itself and whereas, according to the police, the deceased had died only on account of the epilepsy, when disputed questions http://www.judis.nic.in of facts cannot be adjudicated under Section 482 Cr.P.C, keeping all the abovesaid points open and to obviate the doubts entertained by the petitioner and when it is further informed that the dead body is lying in the hospital, in similar and identical circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in 2019 SCC on line mad 1491 (Rohin Kumar vs. District Collector and others), has considered the issues involved and accordingly gave directions to the Magistrate who is to conduct the enquiry under Section 176(1-A) of Cr.P.C to take a call on the grievances of the petitioner whether to conduct a re-postmortem as per his/her wisdom and in accordance with law. The following observations/directions made by the Division Bench are relevant for considering the issues involved in this matter and the same are extracted below:

(i) The petitioner/her Advocate are directed to submit their representation to the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Virudhachalam, qua the cause of death of her husband as claimed by the petitioner immediately without delay i.e. positively on the next day of the receipt of the copy of this order.
(ii) The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Virudhacalam is directed to consider the representation made by the petitioner/her Advocate with reference to the cause of death of her husband and accordingly take a decision whether a re-postmortem is to be conducted on the deceased as sought for by the petitioner in his or her own wisdom and in accordance with law particularly the procedures outlined under Section 176(1-A) Cr.