Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9. He answered all the points in favour of prosecution holding the accused guilty and convicted him as stated earlier.

10. In this case where the dead body could not be easily identified and the cause of death is not known but charge of murder is made against accused the crucial questions that arise for consideration are :

1. Whether the skeletal remains that were found in the land comprised in Sy. No. 3/8 of Addur village belonging to Kenchappa-PW-1 are those of Gowramma ?
2. Whether she met with a homicidal death ?
(2) Simpon's Forensic Medicine.
(3) Parikh's Text Book of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology by Dr. C. K. Parikh - Fourth Edition to contend that superimposition test is only negative in nature and will only rule out that it does not belong to deceased person and is not a proper or a positive test to establish the identity of a person. At any rate even proceeding on the line on which the learned Counsel for the accused suggested that the dead body or the skeletal remains can only provide corroborative evidence and the method is of greater value negatively to exclude certain person, in this case there is enough material to indicate that skeletal remains were found on the field belonging to Kenchappa - PW-1 along with certain personal belongings of Gowramma. As stated earlier, the said belongings could not have been found in such disarrayed state unless something foul had happened to Gowramma. Gowramma was not heard of after she left the house on the day she accompained the accused. In the circumstances, it is not unreasonable to infer that the mortal remains belonged to said Gowramma and the superimposition test conducted lends assurance to that fact. When each one of the witnesses examined referred to earlier have identified that the said Gowramma was wearing these personal belongings on the day she left the house we do not think it would be appropriate to draw an inference that skeletal remains do not belong to Gowramma. Therefore, the identify of the dead body has been established as that of Gowramma.

17. In cases where evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion has to be drawn has to be fully established. In this case the circumstances established point out to the fact that Gowramma being missing, her personal belongings were found along with the skeletal remains, which are duly identified by the persons, there is no other way of her personal belongings being found near skeletal remains, unless she being dead and she died having been subjected to violence.

20. In this case the allegation is that Gowramma was not seen alive after she is stated to have gone with the accused, PW-17 Honnamma, Jayamma and deceased Gowramma. The dead body was discovered only on 18-11-1991. There was no inkling to connect the dead body to be that of Gowramma at the stage. Therefore, if the Investigating Officer thought that if the photographs of the deceased were taken in the state in which it was found and M.Os 5 to 8 that were found near the dead body had been kept in the sealed cover, it would not have been possible later on to secure the identify of the same through the near relatives who may come up subsequently. At that stage it was not known who the relatives of the said person were. Therefore, the criticism of the learned Counsel for the defence that neither the skeletal remains nor M.Os 5 to 8 that were found there had not been sealed by itself would not affect the testimony of the witnesses in identifying the same. It is difficult to state that the pettycoat, the saree and chappals were not found near the dead body because PW-1 Kenchappa who had not known anything about the deceased and who lodged a complaint would have anything to do in planting the same or displacing the same with other things. From the sequence of events it is clear at that stage no body knew that as to whose body it was. Therefore, we do not accede to the contentions that it is not safe to rely upon the identity of the dead body based on M.Os 5 to 8 or the skeleton found. It is not the case of the defence that skeletal remains had been replaced by another skeleton or the skeleton was not the one that was found in the field of PW-1 Kenchappa in relation to which he had lodged a complaint. It is no doubt true that considering the highly decomposed state of the body it is not possible for the Doctor who conducted the autopsy to determine the age or sex with any definiteness, but on an over all view he stated that the body belonged to a woman considering the build of the body and aged about 30 years.