IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.230 of 2008 SURENDRA PRASAD Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2 21.1.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the State. The post mortem report prepared by one Dr. Hemant Kumar Jha, Medical Officer, Subdivisional Hospital, Danapur depicts an instance of callousness. The petitioner is aggrieved both by the manner in which the post mortem report has been prepared and the way investigation is being handled. The petitioner is the informant of Bihta P.S. Case no.198/05 and on his written report recorded at 9 P.M. on 15.7.2005 a case under sections 307, 302, 504 of the Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act was registered on 16.7.2005 at 10.15 P.M. In the F.I.R. he alleged that one Bineshwar Rai assaulted his uncle Baijnath Rai son of late Jeetu Rai with butt of gun, as a result of which he succumbed to the injuries. It is alleged that the police prepared inquest report in the morning of 17.7.2005 at the police station and thereafter the dead body was sent to the hospital for post mortem wherein glaring discrepancies regarding the name of dead person and time of receipt of dead body occurred in its preparation. Firstly, the post mortem report would show that autopsy was done on the dead body of Surendra Rai at 2.30 P.M. on 17.7.2005. In fact Surendra Rai is very much alive and he is the informant of the case. The corpus which was sent to the hospital for examination was the dead body of Baijnath - 2 - KHAN Rai, uncle of the petitioner Surendra Rai and not of Surendra Rai. There appears to be further error in the very first line of the post mortem report wherein it is stated that body was received at 9 P.M. on 16.7.2005. It appears from the F.I.R. that the occurrence took place at 7.30 P.M. on 16.7.2005 and F.I.R. was lodged at 10.15 PM on 16.7.2005. It is also admitted by the State that the dead body was sent by the police for post mortem in morning of 17.7.2005. Thus recording of time of receipt of dead body in the first line of the post mortem report showing the time as 9 P.M. on 16.7.2005 is an obvious error. As the post mortem report may not cause any prejudice to either of the parties, the same should be corrected by the Subdivisional Hospital, Danapur. Necessary steps in this regard be taken. With the aforesaid observation, this application stands allowed to the extent indicated above. (S.P.Singh,J)