Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

40.Even more strange is the opinion given by the witness in Chief examination that the approximate time of death was 1 to 3 days prior to the autopsy. When he was asked in cross examination whether the time of death could have been more towards 72 hours than 24 hours from the time of post-mortem he had Crl.A.490 & 1137 of 2012 and 322 of 2013 answered that it depends upon situation and it was possible. Further in cross-examination he had stated that he did not take any materials for the purpose of chemical examination because the body was in a decomposed state. He also stated that he found the body was displaying pugilistic attitude. The post mortem was conducted between 4.30 p.m. and 5.40 p.m. on 24.4.1995. He also stated that the rigor motis was absent when the body was placed before him. Mohammed Haneefa could have been murdered only after 10.30 p.m. on 23.4.1995, if the evidence let in by the prosecution is believed. It is inconceivable to believe that his body might have become decomposed to such an extent rendering it impossible to obtain specimens of internal organs for the purpose of chemical analysis. The doctor has specifically stated in his evidence that the body was displaying a pugilistic Crl.A.490 & 1137 of 2012 and 322 of 2013 attitude and quite decomposed. The finding recorded in the post mortem notes and asserted by PW 1 with regard to the probable time of death would cause unsurmountable difficulty for the prosecution and cast serious doubts as regards the credibilty of the case set up.

41.To conclude that the the body found by the side of the road was that of Mohammed Haneefa, the learned Sessions Judge has placed much reliance on Ext.P4 photograph. Ext.P4 is a colour photograph of a person lying dead after sustaining injuries. Even a casual perusal of the photograph would reveal that several abrasions and injuries were found on the forearm . No such injuries are seen noted by PW 1 in the post mortem certificate. However, PW3 and PW17 have identified Ext.P4 as the photograph of Mohammed Crl.A.490 & 1137 of 2012 and 322 of 2013 Haneefa. The said photograph was marked through PW3. We have scanned the whole of the prosecution records and were not able to ascertain from whose custody the photograph was seized by PW 20. No records have been produced or marked to prove the seizure of the said photograph. At the same time , Ext.P34 would reveal that the case records in crime 253 of 1995 were destroyed in routine course in the year 2001. Except for Ext.P1 and P2, the requisition and post mortem notes, no other documents pertaining to that period have been produced or marked. The negatives of the photograph are also not forthcoming. The learned Sessions Judge got over this imbroglio by concluding that the photograph might have been taken using a digital camera. We are unable to agree as digital cameras were not even commercially available for affordable prices in India in Crl.A.490 & 1137 of 2012 and 322 of 2013 the year 1995. To add to the agony Ext.P4 photograph was not shown to PW1 to bring out the fact that he had conducted the post mortem in respect of the person who was seen in the photograph. When PW1 asserts in his evidence that the person on whom autopsy was conducted by him was displaying a pugilistic attitude, no such inference is possible from Ext.P4 .