Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

15. P.W-11 is the witness of inquest of deceased Rajveer who stated on oath that after getting information of death of Rajveer at G.T.B hospital, he had prepared the inquest on 20.8.2008, which was proved as Exhibit Ka-'16' being in his handwriting and signature. He stated that the signatures of Ummed and Devendra were taken as witnesses in the inquest report and their identification statements were recorded. P.W-11 had identified his signatures on the statements of Ummed, marked as Exhibit Ka-11. The statement of another inquest witness was also proved by him. The letter for request of post mortem, was marked as Exhibit Ka-19, on identification of writing and signature of P.W-11, who stated that the body was sent for the post mortem by him and it was handed over to the Ummed and family members of the deceased after the post mortem. In cross, P.W-11 was confronted about the entries in the inquest and the reason of death of deceased Rajveer as narrated therein by his son Ummed Singh. He further, on confrontation, stated that when the inquest was prepared by him, no paper related to the registration of the case at P.S Baghpat was with him. He did not seal the dead body as it was done by the hospital people. P.W-11 further stated that he did not record the statements of Ummed and Devendra about the occurrence at the time of taking their statement for identification in the inquest.

The Post Mortem and the Injuries:

16. P.W-6 is the post mortem doctor, who had proved the post mortem as Exhibit Ka-'8', being in his handwriting and signature. It was stated by P.W-6 that he was posted at the mortuary of G.T.B hospital on 20.8.2008, the dead body of Rajveer was identified by his sons and one Devendra s/o Srichand. The police papers were brought by S.S.I Humkum Chand P.S-Dilshad Garden. The post mortem was commenced on 20.8.2006 at about 12.00 p.m and was completed at 1.30 p.m. The external injuries found on the persons of the deceased as noted in the post mortem report correlate to the injuries of the deceased in the injury report prepared by the doctor examined as P.W-4.

On internal examination:-

"The bone below injury no.1 was cut fractured in an area of 9.5 cm x 0.5 cm. There was linear fracture surrounding the injury which was shown in vault of skull in the diagram. There was inflation in the brain, extra dural, sub-dural and sub-arachenoid, hemorrhage were present in the brain. There was contusion on both frontal, temporal and right parietal lobe. The lungs were swollen and the stomach was empty. The estimated time of death was 12.00 hours prior to the post-mortem, the cause of death was shock due to damage in brain and its bones. It was stated by the doctor P.W-6 that these injuries had been caused by "moderately, heavy cutting weapon" by force. The injury nos.1 and 2 were sufficient to cause death. The injury no.3 was caused by blunt object. Rigour mortis was present over the body."

17. In cross, P.W-6 stated that he did not mention the name of the accused in the post mortem report. He reiterated the nature of injuries described at injury no.1 and stated that inflation was present in the entire brain.

18. P.W-6 was confronted about the condition of the deceased after sustaining such serious injuries and as to whether he could remain conscious. On this, he stated that he could not state anything about that as he did not treat the injured at the first instance. P.W-6 was confronted about injury no.3 that it may be that it could be an old injury of 4-5 days or 5 to 7 days. P.W-6 was confronted about certain entries in the post-mortem and clarified that the dead body of which the post mortem was conducted was of male and not a female and the mistake of gender of the deceased was inadvertent. The sample seal was tallied by him, the paper of which was proved as Exhibit Ka-9 wherein the names of the deceased as Rajveer s/o Mula aged 60 years was entered by him.