Apex Court restores order of discharge of accused in murder case, relies on doctor’s deposition & post-mortem report stating that death was natural
Justices Abhay S. Oka & Ujjal Bhuyan [18-01-2024]

Read Order:Ramalingam &Ors v. N. Viswanathan (SC-CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 212 OF 2024)

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, January 19, 2024: The Supreme Court has allowed the appeal of the accused-appellants in a murder case with the observation that the Madras High Court had wrongly set aside the order of discharge when the doctor had disclosed in the post-mortem report that the death of the deceased was a natural one.

The admitted facts of the case were that the respondent’s father Nanjundan had lodged a First Information Report alleging the commission of offences under Sections 341, 323 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants. In the complaint, based on which the FIR was registered, it was alleged that the first appellant had filed a suit against the respondent, praying for carrying out the measurement of the property claimed by the appellants and removing encroachment.

On the date of the incident, the appellants and one Gopal assembled in front of the respondent’s house, along with village munsif and a surveyor. They informed the respondents father that Gopal had purchased the said property from the first appellant, and they wanted to measure the property. The respondent’s mother (deceased) tried to prevent them from entering to carry out a survey. The allegation was that at that time, the first appellant exhorted the second appellant to kill the deceased. Thereupon, the second appellant picked up a stick lying at the site and assaulted her on the chest. After that, the third and first appellant kicked the deceased on her chest and stomach. The respondent’s mother was declared dead in the hospital where she was taken.

After completing the investigation, the investigating officer submitted a final report recording that the death of the deceased was due to natural cause and due to prior enmity, the respondent falsely implicated the appellants. The final report was accordingly, filed but instead of filing a protest petition, the respondent’s father filed a complaint under Section 200 of CrPC containing the same averments made in his complaint based on which the FIR was registered. The Judicial Magistrate recorded evidence of witnesses & a doctor who deposed that the death was natural.

The appellants invoked Section 227 of CrPC for discharge, which was allowed by an order dated January 9, 2009.The husband of the deceased Siddammal, challenged this order by filing a revision application. The High Court, by the impugned judgment and order, had allowed the same and remanded the case to the Additional District and Sessions Judge for holding trial.

It was the case of the appellants that the post-mortem certificate recorded that there were no ante-mortem injuries anywhere on the body of the deceased and there was no final opinion regarding the cause of death.

The High Court had opined that the Additional District and Sessions Judge had conducted a mini-trial. However, the Top Court observed that that a mini-trial was not conducted and the Court had considered the case within four corners of its limited jurisdiction under Section 227 of the CrPC.

Clarifying that post-mortem certificate recorded that there were no ante-mortem injuries present on the body of the deceased, the Division Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan took note of the evidence ofDr. R. Vallinayagam reiterating that in the post-mortem examination, he did not notice any external injuries on the body of the deceased.

Thus, the Bench noted that the expert witness examined by the respondent, who admittedly carried out a post-mortem on the body of the deceased, had categorically stated that the death of the deceased was natural. This wascoupled with the fact that there were no external injuries found on the body of the deceased.

The Bench considered the version of the respondent’s father who was examined as PW-1 stating that one of the appellants hit the deceased with a stick on her chest, and the other appellant repeatedly kicked her on her chest. In the post-mortem, no injury was found on the chest or any other part of the body of the deceased.

“Therefore, taking the evidence of the respondent’s father and other witnesses as it is, there was no material to proceed against the appellants in the private complaint filed by the respondent’s father. We may also note here that even according to the case of the respondent’s father, there was a dispute between him and the appellants over the property, and the incident occurred when, as per the order of the Civil Court, an attempt was made to survey the property through a government surveyor”, the Bench noticed.

According to the Bench,the High Court, even after referring to the post-mortem certificate, had completely ignored the doctor’s evidence. Hence, the Bench set aside the impugned judgment while restoring the Judgment in Sessions Case.