Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Similar view was taken by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Bhagwan Dass vs. State of Haryana reported in 1996 Cr.L.R. (SC) 112 and Mulak Raj & Ors. vs. State of Haryana reported in 1996 Cr.L.R. (SC) 72.

12. The appellant's counsel, also raised a fervent argument that the Medical Jurist did not open the spinal cord of the deceased and thus, he could not have noticed the damage to the spinal cord and the vertebra C1 and C2. In this regard, we have carefully gone through the evidence of Dr. Radheyshyam Verma (PW-21) who conducted autopsy upon the dead body of Smt. Mohini. In cross- examination, the doctor admitted that he did not cut the spinal canal while carrying out autopsy upon the dead body. It is specifically recorded in the Postmortem Report (P-15) that the spinal cord of the deceased was healthy and was thus not opened. Since the Medical Jurist did not even choose to open the spinal cord of the deceased, it is doubtful whether the lacerations of the spinal cord and the injuries to C1 and C2 vertebrae which the doctor referred to in his evidence as being visible on the anterior side, would have been visible/noticeable. A very important conclusion can be drawn from this admission of the doctor. If at all, it was actually a case wherein, the accused twisted the neck of the deceased in a fit of rage then, the laceration of the spinal cord would not have been restricted to the anterior side of the neck (18 of 18) [CRLA-216/2019] only. The entire spinal cord and the underlying areas of the neck tissues would have received the consequential damage which would be visible to the Medical Jurist. Therefore, a doubt is casted on the veracity of the medical evidence deposed by witness Dr. Radheyshyam Verma (PW-21).