Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. PW15 was the Associate Professor of Forensic Medicine at the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram when she conducted postmortem examination on the body of the deceased. Ext.P11 is the postmortem certificate issued by her. She has given evidence regarding the 40 ante-mortem injuries found on the body of the deceased on postmortem examination, and her evidence is that the injuries noted by her would correspond to the injuries noted in the Ext.P7 wound certificate. As regards the cause of death, her evidence is that the death was due to the multiple injuries sustained by the deceased. When cross-examined by the defence, she explained that none of the simple injuries noted by her independently is sufficient to cause death, but collectively the injuries are sufficient to cause death, and the deceased died due to the collective effect of the multiple injuries sustained by him. When the defence put a suggestion during cross-examination that the death was not due to the multiple injuries, but due to some other secondary reasons, the Doctor affirmed that the death of Ibrahim was due to the multiple injuries sustained by him. Even while stating that one or the other injury independently may not be sufficient to cause death, she affirmed that the 40 ante mortem injuries taken together as a whole were sufficient to cause death, and Ibrahim in fact died due to the multiple injuries. The learned senior counsel submitted that the death of Ibrahim in fact occurred due to the cardiac arrest developed at the hospital. Of course, it is true that the Ext.X1 case sheet contains an entry regarding the cardiac arrest developed at the hospital, and the case sheet also shows that this cardiac arrest led to death at about 1.30 p.m on 16.12.1997.

11. It is pertinent to note that no suggestion was put by the defence to PW15 that the actual cause of death was cardiac arrest and that the multiple injuries sustained by the deceased had not in any manner resulted in cardiac arrest. PW16 has given evidence that the patient died at the hospital at about 1.35 p.m on 16.12.1997 after he developed bradycardia. Of course, in the case sheet it is seen recorded that the patient had developed cardiac arrest. The question is whether the death of Ibrahim was solely due to cardiac arrest, or whether this cardiac arrest was in fact caused by the injuries inflicted by the accused. It is here the evidence of PW15 assumes importance that the death was in fact due to the multiple injuries sustained by the deceased. When the evidence of PW15 and PW16 is read together, the only finding possible is that the deceased developed bradycardia, and his blood pressure came down heavily making it impossible to be recorded, only due to the multiple injuries sustained by him in the incident of assault. No suggestion was put to PW16 also that the actual cause of death was cardiac arrest, and not the injuries sustained by the victim two days back. When the defence projects a contention that the actual cause of death was cardiac arrest and not the injuries sustained by the victim, the defence is expected to put such a suggestion to the Doctor appropriately. The evidence of PW16 would not show that the sole cause of death was cardiac arrest, and PW15 is definite and firm in her evidence that the actual cause of death was the multiple injuries sustained by the victim. These two versions will have to be read and appreciated together to find out what exactly was the cause of death. It is quite definite that the bradycardia developed by the victim did not in fact independently cause death, and it was only the result of the serious multiples injuries sustained by the victim two days back. It is well proved by evidence that these injuries were voluntarily inflicted on his body by the assailants with the full knowledge of consequence, though not with the intention to cause death.

12. I could not find any material inconsistency in between the Ext.P7 wound certificate and the nature of the injuries noted in the postmortem certificate by PW15. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that the deceased had sustained any sort of injury in transit from the local hospital to the Medical College Hospital.

13. On an appreciation of the evidence given by PW15 and PW17, I find that Ibrahim in fact died due to the bradycardia caused by the multiple injuries sustained by him in the alleged incident, or that cardiac arrest was not the independent cause of his death.

14. PW16 has explained that bradycardia is a condition where the blood pressure would come down heavily, making it impossible to record it, and the evidence of PW15 shows that what in fact resulted in bradycardia is the multiple injuries sustained by the victim. It is quite definite from the evidence that these multiple injuries were inflicted on the various parts of his body by the assailants with weapons like iron rod and wooden stick. The material witnesses have given evidence that Ibrahim was beaten up like a dog or like a snake. These versions of the material witnesses will expose the nature of the assault made on his body by the assailants, and also the severity and the number of the injuries sustained by the victim in the incident. I find that this cannot be simply called an instance of assault punishable under Section 324 I.P.C. A clear case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable under Section 304 I.P.C is well made out in this case by the prosecution evidence, specifically the evidence of PW15 and PW16 read along with the details in the postmortem certificate and also the Ext.X1 case sheet. It is very important that a suggestion was not put to PW15 or PW16 that cardiac arrest was the sole and independent cause of death. PW15 affirmed in evidence that what actually led to death is the multiple injuries, and nothing was asked to her by the defence as regards the bradycardia or the cardiac arrest developed by the victim just prior to his death. I am not inclined to accept the defence projected by the appellants that this cannot be treated as a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable under the first part of Section 304 I.P.C.