Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
1. Bruise present at dorsal aspect base of left hand of size 2 x 1 cm.
2. Bruise present at ventral aspect of upper part of left forearm of size 3 x 1 cm.
3. Bruise present at dorsal aspect of upper part of left elbow of size 2 x 1 cm.
4. Abrasion present at dorsal aspect of right elbow joint of size 2 x 1 cm.
(37) The witness has also deposed that on internal examination, Head was intact; Neck soft tissue were intact; Chest Blood and blood clot was present in between 2,3,4 and right side and 2, 3, 4 and 5 left side intercostal space; Abdomen & Pelvis were intact; Liver and gall bladder right lobe of liver was lacerated and rupture, blood and blood present in peritoneal cavity ½ liter; Spleen was lacerated; kidney, Pancreas, stomach was intact. He has further deposed that he had opined the Cause of Death as Hemorrhagic shock due to internal abdomen huge bleeding due to rupture of liver and spleen as a result of blunt force consequent upon abdomen as a result of assault. He has further deposed that all injuries were antemortem in nature, time since death as per hospital record 2 hours 35 minutes. He has proved the detail postmortem report which is Ex.PW15/A. According to him, total number of inquest papers were 11 and blood gauze piece was preserved.
(76) I have considered the medical evidence which has come on record, statements of the member of the Medical Board and Dr. Bhim Singh and also the report given by the Autopsy Surgeon.
(77) It is argued by the Ld. Defence Counsel that on 29.09.2012 at 11.00 AM postmortem examination was conducted by Dr. Sudesh Kumar wherein he had mentioned four external injuries on the body of the deceased which are simple in nature and according to Postmortem Report there were no blood stains on the clothes of the deceased whereas on internal examination, Dr. Sudesh Kumar had mentioned rupture of liver and spleen of the deceased with no corresponding injuries in the skin, subcutaneous tissues, peritoneum and ribs of the deceased; he had also mentioned half liters of blood in peritoneal cavity. The Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Sudesh Kumar gave the cause of death as hemorrhagic shock due to internal abdomen huge bleeding due to rupture of liver and spleen as a result of blunt force consequent upon abdomen as a result of assault. After postmortem examination Dr. Sudesh Kumar he had handed over the blood in gauze piece with sample seal. But he did not preserve the clothes of the deceased to match the blood stains, which could have been present on the clothes of the deceased due to assault.
➢ On Internal examination the external injuries are not corresponding with internal injuries mentioned in Postmortem report there was no extravasation of blood in abdominal wall, peritoneum and fracture of ribs which is most common in blunt trauma abdomen to rupture spleen and liver.
➢ Spleen and liver are largest and highly vascular organs in the body, when either one of them or both of them rupture together, it causes extensive bleeding leading to immediate shock and other organs becomes pale and lungs collapse and do not become edematous as mentioned in Xray of the deceased. In case if there would have been rupture of both Spleen and Liver to the extent as suggested by Dr. Sudesh it is impossible that Premwati would have even survived for an hour. She, however, survived for almost 1617 hours. Hence, the above findings of Dr. Suresh regarding Rupture of both Liver and Spleen is highly erroneous.
(100) Coming next to the allegations against the accused in so far as the deceased Premwati is concerned, the medical evidence on record does not confirm the use of force by the accused upon the deceased Premwati as alleged by them. It is the case of the prosecution that Premwati was thrown on the ground i.e. on the road while Santosh was giving fist blows to Premwati on her chest, Ashwani had caught hold of her legs and Meenu @ Reena had caught hold of her hair. Had that been so she would have received corresponding injuries in the form of injury marks on her arms, back, legs head etc. which are not there. On the one hand the MLC of Premwati Ex.PW11/A and the death summary placed on record shows that there was no injury marks on her body. It is only the postmortem report Ex.PW15/A which is a suspect before this Court wherein certain injureis have been shown on the body of the deceased i.e. Bruise at dorsal aspect base of left hand of size 2 x 1 cm; Bruise at ventral aspect of upper part of left forearm of size 3 x 1 cm; Bruise at dorsal aspect of upper part of left elbow of size 2 x 1 cm and Abrasion at dorsal aspect of right elbow joint of size 2 x 1 cm which appears to be doubtful. Further, as already observed herein above had Premwati been given beatings to the extent that her Spleen and Liver had been ruptured, she would not have been survived even for an hour whereas initially she was fully conscious and it was only at about 8:00 PM that she started experiencing pain in chest and her condition deteriorated when she was shifted to the Hospital where she expired in the next day morning i.e. after 1617 hours of the incident. It is also evident from the medical record that Premwati was an old patient of diabetes, hypertension and cardiac problem for last eightnine years and at the time of her admission she was having a very high level of blood sugar i.e. 604 and other metabolic derangement which was due to intrinsic systemic reasons and death could be on account of any these factors. The Death Summary also confirms that she had expired on account of Myocardial Infarction. As discussed herein above the medical evidence on record confirms the death of the deceased Premwati on account of natural reason and the findings of the Autopsy Surgeon showing death on account of rupture of Liver and Spleen is rejected.