Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Thus, it appears that the proximal cause of death was not the injuries suffered by the deceased, but it was lack of treatment which appears to have lowered the chance of his survival and that lack of treatment had expedited the death of the deceased.

Date and time of death:

35. The time of death is also not conclusive because as per the inquest report (Ext.2), the deceased was being treated in his house and that he had died on 20.10.2010 at 4.00 pm. But as per the entries made in the post Page No.# 25/33 mortem report, the examination of the dead body was conducted at 12:16 pm to 02:30 pm on 20.10.2010. As per PW-1, the deceased had died on 19.10.2010 at 5.00 pm. The PW-2 had stated that 4 (four) days after the incident, her husband had died, which makes the date of death as 19.10.2010. As per the son of the deceased (PW-3), the deceased died after 1 (one) week of the incident, which makes the date of death as 22.10.2010. As per the version of PW-5, he was asked to take his father to SMCH after 2 days, but his father died after one day at night, which makes the date of death as 17.10.2010. The son of the deceased (PW-6) had stated that the complainant told him to take his father to SMCH after 4 (four) days, but after 1 (one) day at night, his father had died, which makes the date of death of deceased on 17.10.2010. Thus, the date of death remains uncertain.

Page No.# 31/33

53. Hence, the Court is inclined to answer the point of determination in the negative and against the prosecution by holding that the evidence of PW- 2 fails to inspire the confidence of the Court as to existence of evidence beyond reasonable document that the appellants have caused fatal injury to the deceased, which was the proximal cause of his death. Moreover, the Court is also inclined to opine that sufficient circumstantial evidence does not exist in this case which would lead to the only and no other view that the alleged crime was committed by the appellants.

54. Under the facts and circumstances of the present case, the cases of Ravasaheb @ Ravasahebgouda (supra), and Subhash @ Pappu (supra), cited by the learned Addl. P.P. would not come to the aid of the prosecution to save the impugned judgment and sentence.

55. In light of the discussions above, the appellants have been able to make out a case that the chain of events and circumstances remains incomplete and that the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants were the assailants of the deceased, and their assault on the deceased was the proximate cause of his death. Moreover, the circumstantial evidence is not sufficient to lead to a presumption that none other than the appellants could have committed the murderous attack on the deceased on 15.10.2010.