Case: Mohd. Zahid Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

of the fact that PW-8 had conducted the post mortem on Jabeenas body nearly 8 days after it was buried, and admittedly even according to PW-8, the body of Jabeena had decomposed considerably at the time of the post mortem examination. This is coupled with the fact that she had admitted in her evidence that she has no other authoritative text to contradict or support her, as against the statements found in the text books like the "Lyons Medical Jurisprudence", Parikhs text book on Medical Jurisprudence, The Essentials of Forensic Medicines by Dr. K.S. Naryana Reddy. The second cumulative cause of death as per the opinion of PW-8 is cerebral anoxia caused due to burns. It is true that PW-8 noticed certain burn marks on the face and chest of Jabeena. It is seen from the text books and from the evidence of PW-8 that anoxia of the brain is caused due to lack of supply of oxygen to the brain which could be due to burning as found in the body of Jabeena. PW-8 in her statement before the court stated thus : "Cerebral anoxia means the stoppage of blood supply to the brain. In the event of cerebral anoxia in the post mortem examination except the pale appearance of the brain, there will not be any other change in the brain. As the brain had been liquefied in this case, it cannot be stated whether brain becomes pale or not. There was no other sign by which I could say that there was cerebral anoxia. Cerebral anoxia in my opinion or conclusion based on my observation and findings in the post mortem examination. It is not correct to say that no opinion of cerebral anoxia could be given or arrived at in the case of liquification of the brain". A cautious reading of this part of PW-8s evidence shows in one part PW-8 admits that the one and only method by which a medical examiner can conclude that cause of death was due to cerebral anoxia is by noticing pale appearance of the brain. She also specifically admits that there will not be any other change in the brain in the case of cerebral anoxia and since the brain had become liquefied, it cannot be stated if the brain had become pale or not. She is also specific in her statement that there was no other sign by which she could say that was cerebral anoxia. Stopping for a while at this stage and examining PW-8s evidence, one finds that at the time of the post mortem examination, Jabeenas brain had liquefied and there was no way by which PW-8 could have noticed the paleness in the brain. However, in the latter part of her evidence, she deviates from her earlier opinion and states that it is not correct to say that no opinion of cerebral anoxia could be given or arrived at in the case of liquification of the brain. These two statements are diametrically opposed to each other and we find it rather difficult to accept this part of her evidence which is so self-contradictory. In our view, the opinion of PW-8 that the cause of death as recorded by her is due to the cumulative effect of asphyxia and cerebral anoxia, is rather difficult to accept.We are aware of the fact that sufficient weightage should be given to the evidence of the doctor who has conducted the post mortem, as compared to the statements found in the text books, but giving weightage does not ipso facto mean that each and every statement made by a medical witness should be accepted on its face value even when it is self-contradictory. This is one such case where we find that there is a reasonable doubt in regard to the cause of death of Jabeena and we find it not safe to rely upon the evidence of PW-8, solely, for the purpose of coming to the conclusion that Jabeenas death is proved by the prosecution to be homicidal.We have examined the evidence of PWs. 1 to 7 who speak of the factum of the relationship of the appellant with Jabeena and various possible motives the appellant could have had for causing the death of Jabeena. First of all, we should notice the fact that on the date of the death of Jabeena, none of these witnesses entertained any doubt as to the complicity of the appellant in the death of Jabeena. They proceeded on the basis that Jabeena died an accidental death and even persuaded the investigating authorities to release the body without a proper post mortem. Therefore the court will have to be very cautious while appreciating their evidence. Assuming that the evidence of PWs 1 to 7 can be accepted by the courts, it would only conclude that the appellant had a motive to kill Jabeena, but then it could also give a reason for PWs. 1 to 7 to depose falsely against the appellant, in view of the tragic death of a loved one. Motive being a double-edged weapon, could cut both ways - helping or harming both the prosecution and the defence. Hence, we are of the considered view that if we are unable to place reliance on the evidence of PW-8 then the evidence of PWs. 1 to 7 will not be sufficient to convict the appellant of the prosecution charge. Of course, the prosecution has established that the appellant was the only person in the company of Jabeena and her child at the relevant time on the fateful day. But this again stops the prosecution case in the realm of suspicion, which by itself cannot be substituted for hard evidence. Aware as we are of the fact, a budding life came to an unfortunate premature end, our jurisprudence will not permit us to base a conviction on the basis of the evidence placed by the prosecution in this case and the benefit of a reasonable doubt must be given to the appellant.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]The second cumulative cause of death as per the opinion ofis cerebral anoxia caused due to burns. It is true thatnoticed certain burn marks on the face and chest of Jabeena. It is seen from the text books and from the evidence ofthat anoxia of the brain is caused due to lack of supply of oxygen to the brain which could be due to burning as found in the body of Jabeena.in her statement before the court stated thus : "Cerebral anoxia means the stoppage of blood supply to the brain. In the event of cerebral anoxia in the post mortem examination except the pale appearance of the brain, there will not be any other change in the brain. As the brain had been liquefied in this case, it cannot be stated whether brain becomes pale or not. There was no other sign by which I could say that there was cerebral anoxia. Cerebral anoxia in my opinion or conclusion based on my observation and findings in the post mortem examination. It is not correct to say that no opinion of cerebral anoxia could be given or arrived at in the case of liquification of the brain". A cautious reading of this part ofevidence shows in one partadmits that the one and only method by which a medical examiner can conclude that cause of death was due to cerebral anoxia is by noticing pale appearance of the brain. She also specifically admits that there will not be any other change in the brain in the case of cerebral anoxia and since the brain had become liquefied, it cannot be stated if the brain had become pale or not. She is also specific in her statement that there was no other sign by which she could say that was cerebral anoxia. Stopping for a while at this stage and examiningevidence, one finds that at the time of the post mortem examination, Jabeenas brain had liquefied and there was no way by whichcould have noticed the paleness in the brain. However, in the latter part of her evidence, she deviates from her earlier opinion and states that it is not correct to say that no opinion of cerebral anoxia could be given or arrived at in the case of liquification of the brain. These two statements are diametrically opposed to each other and we find it rather difficult to accept this part of her evidence which is soIn our view, the opinion ofthat the cause of death as recorded by her is due to the cumulative effect of asphyxia and cerebral anoxia, is rather difficult to accept.We are aware of the fact that sufficient weightage should be given to the evidence of the doctor who has conducted the post mortem, as compared to the statements found in the text books, but giving weightage does not ipso facto mean that each and every statement made by a medical witness should be accepted on its face value even when it isThis is one such case where we find that there is a reasonable doubt in regard to the cause of death of Jabeena and we find it not safe to rely upon the evidence ofsolely, for the purpose of coming to the conclusion that Jabeenas death is proved by the prosecution to be homicidal.We have examined the evidence of PWs. 1 to 7 who speak of the factum of the relationship of the appellant with Jabeena and various possible motives the appellant could have had for causing the death of Jabeena. First of all, we should notice the fact that on the date of the death of Jabeena, none of these witnesses entertained any doubt as to the complicity of the appellant in the death of Jabeena. They proceeded on the basis that Jabeena died an accidental death and even persuaded the investigating authorities to release the body without a proper post mortem. Therefore the court will have to be very cautious while appreciating their evidence. Assuming that the evidence of PWs 1 to 7 can be accepted by the courts, it would only conclude that the appellant had a motive to kill Jabeena, but then it could also give a reason for PWs. 1 to 7 to depose falsely against the appellant, in view of the tragic death of a loved one. Motive being aweapon, could cut both wayshelping or harming both the prosecution and the defence. Hence, we are of the considered view that if we are unable to place reliance on the evidence ofthen the evidence of PWs. 1 to 7 will not be sufficient to convict the appellant of the prosecution charge. Of course, the prosecution has established that the appellant was the only person in the company of Jabeena and her child at the relevant time on the fateful day. But this again stops the prosecution case in the realm of suspicion, which by itself cannot be substituted for hard evidence. Aware as we are of the fact, a budding life came to an unfortunate premature end, our jurisprudence will not permit us to base a conviction on the basis of the evidence placed by the prosecution in this case and the benefit of a reasonable doubt must be given to the appellant.