Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

28. Dr. Komal Singh Chief Medical Officer, Safdarjung hospital was examined as PW-20. He stated that on 10.09.2000 he along with professor R.K. Sharma and Dr. L.K. Baruah conducted 2nd post mortem on the body of the deceased and gave their post mortem report Ex.PW20/A. They opined that death was due to injury to the brain meninges and fracture of the skull. The age of injuries was around 3-4 days. Our impression regarding the manner of death was homicide. He also stated that on 13.09.2000 accused Rajiv Chaudhary and Rajneesh were brought by Ct. Mukesh in his chamber and he found that there was an oval wound having dried scalp on right shoulder of Rajiv Chaudhary, duration of injury was 5 to 7 days and it was possible by human bite. He also found an old oval injury over medial surface of the right forearm placed in middle 1/3 rd 2.5 inch x 2 inch on the body of the Rajneesh. Injury was a human bite and was 5-7 days old. He proved his reports as Ex.PW20/B and Ex.PW20/C. During cross examination he stated that it being summer season the early sign of dis-colouration started from the lower abdomen after 18 hours. There was no injury on the teeth and therefore the same has not been mentioned in the post mortem. He denied the suggestion that he has intentionally not mentioned in the MLC of the accused persons about the teeth impression as infact the same was caused by the police officials by some pipe like object. He also stated that he cannot definitely put that the marks on the body of both the accused were of human bite. He further stated that he checked the entire body of the accused as a whole and did not found any other mark on the body of the accused persons.

5. Marks of Human Bite on the Person of Accused.

74. It is argued by the Ld.APP that according to the evidence collected and as disclosed by the accused persons deceased had bitten on the person of both the accused on the shoulder of Rajiv and on the right arm of Rajnish. In this regard MLC of both the accused have been placed and proved on record and doctor examined as PW- 20 has mentioned that there was old oval wound having durd scab 2"

75. Ld.Defence counsel submitted that it is not proved beyond doubt that it was a human bite as PW-20 himself stated that "I can not definitely put that the marks on the body of both the accused of human bite".

76. Keeping in view this statement given by PW-20 in his cross examination, in my opinion it is not established that there were any human bite present on the body of Rajnish and Rajiv as argued by Ld. APP 


                          And the following circumstances are not proved

                          i)         Marks of Human Bite on the Person of Accused.

                          ii)        Motive.

92. The defence has also emphacised the non-recovery of weapon of offence which has already been discussed. Before proceeding further it has to be seen whether the death is homicidal or accidental. Ld. Defence counsel submitted that as Doctor who conducted postmortem on the dead body examined as PW27 stated that injuries shown in the postmortem can be possible due to accident therefore it creats doubt whether it was murder or accident. But keeping in view the facts that there were incised wounds on the person of the deceased and also the fact there there were no clothes on the dead body itself shows that it was not accident but a murder. The clothes of the victim of accident does not go away. Even the Dr. Komal Si9ngh who was examined as PW 20 and part of the team whoc conducted second post mortem specifically opined that manner of death was homicide which is also reflected from the other circumstances such as missing of clothes of deceased and also the presence of incised wounds on the person of deceased. Therefore it is established that it was a homicide and not accident. 93. As discussed above the present case is based upon circumstantial evidence. The Apex Court has laid down the guide lines for the cases based upon circumstantial evidence to be followed. In the case titled C. Chenga Reddy v State of M.P., (1996) 10 SCC 193 it was held that: