Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Page No.# 3/8

5. During investigation post mortem was conducted in Mangaldoi Civil Hospital on 11.06.2022 wherein it was observed that no external injury is seen except ligature mark. As per the report, the ligature mark was non continuous. However, the cause of death was kept pending till receipt of the FSL report. Thereafter due to political intervention, the special investigation team, i.e., the CID took up the matter for investigation on 12.08.2022 and during investigation, the scene was recreated and the dead body of the deceased was exhumed after 74 days from the first post mortem report and the second post mortem examination was conducted at GMCH on 25.08.2022. But the second post mortem was based on the first post mortem report, wherein a ligature mark was described in the first autopsy report which could not be elicited during the second autopsy due to advanced state of decomposition. Thus, the second post mortem report which was conducted after 74 days after the death of the deceased victim cannot be conclusive evidence in any manner. Further, the Doctor of second post mortem report though relied on the first autopsy report, it stated that the cause of death was due to compression of neck during life. It is also been stated that the deceased was subjected to physical assault before her death, which was not observed during the first post mortem report. Thus, the entire prosecution case is based on the second autopsy report and only on the circumstantial evidence, as there is no eye witness to the prosecution case. The accused is in custody for more than 3 (three) years without any involvement in the alleged offence.

13. Mr. Hassan also submitted a list of witnesses and specially he submitted that till completion of examination of 5 (five) number of witnesses, i.e., the father of the victim, one Sudipta Saha, land owner, one Sarmistha Das Saha, Amal Das, Manalisha Roy and Pulakesh Roy, who worked together with the accused petitioner at the relevant point of time, the petitioner may not be granted with the privilege of bail.

14. Mr. Phukan, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the informant Page No.# 6/8 submitted that from the contents of the charge sheet and other materials, it prima facie reveals that the first autopsy was not done properly, for which the second post mortem had to be done by exhuming the dead body of the deceased after 74 days of the first autopsy. He further submitted that there is no new ground as prayed for in the present application, which is subsequent to the earlier bail application, which was rejected on perusal of the case record and considering all the material aspects.