Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. From all the abovesaid contentions, the learned Counsel for the petitioner strongly contends that it is clear that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have deliberately prepared a false post-mortem report and inquest Panchanama respectively and accordingly seeks reliefs as mentioned herein above.

11. The learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 Dr. M.J. Nagargoje submitted that the following circumstances would clearly indicate that the post-mortem report dated 4th July, 1985, prepared by his client is true and genuine. The learned Counsel contended that in the said post-mortem respondent No. 3 has come to the conclusion, rightly, that the death had occurred due to respiratory failure due to Asphyxia as a result of drowning. The first circumstance, therefore, relied upon was the inquest Panchnama dated 3rd July, 1987, being Ex. 54 when the body was retrieved from the well, no injuries were noticed and no tear marks of the clothes if noticed ought to have been mentioned, as Panchas were present. The second circumstance relied upon by the learned Counsel is that respondent No. 3 could have very well mentioned Muslim male instead of Hindu male in his report if he had wanted to shield the accused in as much as the deceased was a Hindu whereas he had undergone circumcision according to the evidence of the petitioner. The very fact that he had indicated the unknown dead body to be that of Hindu means it was not the body of the brother of the petitioner who had admittedly undergone circumcision. When respondent No.3 had conducted the post-mortem on the said body, it was an unknown dead body and he categorically mentioned Hindu. That would clearly indicate that the body was not that of the brother of the petitioner. The third circumstance which the learned Counsel relied upon was when the dead body was exhumed on 11th July, 1985, it was in a highly decomposed state. Therefore, it would have been very difficult to identify. In fact, even the identification of the said dead body by the petitioner was merely by clothes and wristwatch and not from any bodily marks. Fourthly, the learned Counsel contended that there was no proof whatsoever that the body which was Sic exhausted on 4th July, 1985 and body which was buried on 11th July, 1985 were the same. Another interesting circumstance, according to the learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 that the present petitioner Madhubala had made complaint regarding her brother being missing only on 8th July, 1985 being Ex. 42 in the Trial Court record; though her brother was missing from 30th June, 1985. Another important circumstance, according to the learned Counsel, is that when the clothes were recovered and identified by the petitioner the clothes were all intact and they had no tear marks of purported knife injuries and they also had no bloodstains. Another important factor, according to the learned Counsel is that the panchanama of the exhumation, being Ex. 25 in the Trial Court record, shows the time taken for such exhumation was from 8.30 a.m. till 11.15 a.m. Whereas the post-mortem was purportedly conducted by Dr. Bade on 11th July, 1985 between 9.40 a.m. and 11.30 a.m. which obviously could not have been possible. Therefore, the learned Counsel contends that this cannot be relied upon.

e) The first post-mortem report dated 4th July, 1985, clearly indicates that the unidentified body as Hindu male whereas the petitioner in her evidence has categorically stated that her brother had undergone circumcision for medical reasons and in that event the dead body had been that of her brother. Respondent No. 3 would have observed that the body was of Muslim male since the petitioner's brother had already undergone circumcision. Had respondent No. 3 really known that the body was that of petitioner's brother and wanted to cover up the murder etc. he would have easily mentioned "Muslim" as there was circumcision. Obviously the unidentified body was not circumcised. Therefore, it could not have been that of petitioner's brother.