New Delhi: Holding that a person cannot be convicted on the basis of the post-mortem report alone, Supreme court A man sentenced to life imprisonment in the case of unnatural death of his wife was on Tuesday acquitted and dismissed by the trial court. Patna The High Court ordered his conviction on the basis of the medical report which stated that he died of strangulation.
Bench of Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Ajay Rastogi Abhay S Oak The said that the guilt of the accused has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt and the circumstances established by the prosecution do not lead to a mere probabilistic conclusion about the guilt of the accused. The court also observed that there were no eyewitnesses in the case and the relations between the husband and wife were not strained to indicate any wrongdoing on their part.
In this case, the husband argued that he died due to fire while cooking and the family members tried their best to douse the fire. However, the prosecution rejected his claim as the post-mortem report stated that the death was caused by suffocation. Based on the findings of the post-mortem report, the trial court and the HC convicted him and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
Examining the statements and evidence of all the witnesses, the apex court observed that the guilt of the accused was not proved beyond doubt and acquitted him.
“In this case, neither the prosecution witnesses have given any statement to this effect nor any other material has been placed on record to show that the relationship between the appellant and the deceased was strained in any way. , the appellant was not the only person residing in. House Where the incident took place and it is brought on record that the parents of the appellant were also present in the house on the date of the incident. The fact that other family members of the appellant were present shows that there may be another hypothesis which cannot be completely ruled out. Therefore, it can be said that the established facts do not rule out the existence of any other hypothesis,” Justice Oka ruled.
“Therefore, what remains for consideration is only the opinion of the doctor who conducted the autopsy and gave a report on the cause of death. As in the case of Balaji Gunthu Dhule, on the basis of the post-mortem report only, the appellant was given section could not have been convicted of an offense punishable under 302 Indian Penal Code and consequently for an offense punishable under section 201 of the IPC,” it said.
Bench of Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Ajay Rastogi Abhay S Oak The said that the guilt of the accused has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt and the circumstances established by the prosecution do not lead to a mere probabilistic conclusion about the guilt of the accused. The court also observed that there were no eyewitnesses in the case and the relations between the husband and wife were not strained to indicate any wrongdoing on their part.
In this case, the husband argued that he died due to fire while cooking and the family members tried their best to douse the fire. However, the prosecution rejected his claim as the post-mortem report stated that the death was caused by suffocation. Based on the findings of the post-mortem report, the trial court and the HC convicted him and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
Examining the statements and evidence of all the witnesses, the apex court observed that the guilt of the accused was not proved beyond doubt and acquitted him.
“In this case, neither the prosecution witnesses have given any statement to this effect nor any other material has been placed on record to show that the relationship between the appellant and the deceased was strained in any way. , the appellant was not the only person residing in. House Where the incident took place and it is brought on record that the parents of the appellant were also present in the house on the date of the incident. The fact that other family members of the appellant were present shows that there may be another hypothesis which cannot be completely ruled out. Therefore, it can be said that the established facts do not rule out the existence of any other hypothesis,” Justice Oka ruled.
“Therefore, what remains for consideration is only the opinion of the doctor who conducted the autopsy and gave a report on the cause of death. As in the case of Balaji Gunthu Dhule, on the basis of the post-mortem report only, the appellant was given section could not have been convicted of an offense punishable under 302 Indian Penal Code and consequently for an offense punishable under section 201 of the IPC,” it said.
.