The High Court of Chhattisgarh, in a significant judgment, has ruled that an acquittal based solely on the non-examination of the doctor who conducted a post-mortem is “completely against the law,” especially when the post-mortem report was admitted by the accused under Section 294 of the CrPC.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru set aside the 1998 acquittal of 10 respondents for murder, convicting them under Section 302/149 of the IPC and sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for life.
The Court was hearing an acquittal appeal (ACQA No. 418 of 2010) filed by the State against the September 19, 1998 judgment of the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund. The trial court had acquitted the accused of charges under Sections 302/149 (murder) and 307/149 (attempt to murder) of the IPC, though it convicted them under Sections 148 (rioting with deadly weapon), 452 (house-trespass), and 323/149 (causing hurt) IPC.
Background of the Case
According to the prosecution, the case originated from an incident of exorcism in village Baniya Tora. On the night of February 4, 1994, a meeting was held as accused Ratan was allegedly “possessed by a ghost.” The judgment notes, “After the exorcism, the accused Ratan told that Arjun and his wife are witches, due to which he was possessed by a ghost.”
Deceased Arjun was called to the meeting but did not attend. The following morning, on February 5, 1994, at about 8 am, all the accused, armed with weapons like sticks, rods, and axes, went to Arjun’s house.
The prosecution stated that the accused first met Arjun’s wife on the way and beat her. Upon reaching the house, they assaulted Arjun’s son, Magan (PW-5), and his daughter-in-law, Aautin Bai, injuring her eye. When the deceased Arjun arrived, the accused assaulted him, “dragged him into the garden,” and beat him until he was “completely dead,” after which they fled. An FIR was subsequently lodged by Magan.
Following an investigation, a charge-sheet was filed, and the case was committed to the Sessions Court, where charges were framed under Sections 148, 302/149, 307/149, 323/149, and 482 of the IPC. The accused denied the charges.
Arguments Before the High Court
Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State/appellant, argued that the trial court’s judgment of acquittal was “illegal, improper and incorrect.” He submitted that the post-mortem report (Ex.P-55) was tendered and admitted by the accused under Section 294 CrPC, yet the trial court “acquitted the accused from the charges of 302/149 of IPC solely on the ground that the Doctor, who has conducted the postmortem, has not been examined, which is completely against the law.” He further contended that injured eyewitnesses had supported the prosecution case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Conversely, Mr. Aditya Dhar Diwan, counsel for the respondents, argued that the trial court’s judgment was “just and proper” and based on a “careful and proper appreciation of the evidence.” He asserted that the trial court had rightly acquitted the respondents of the major charges, holding that the prosecution “failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.”
High Court’s Analysis and Findings
The High Court Bench framed the “core question for consideration” as whether the trial court rightly acquitted the respondents solely on the basis of the non-examination of the doctor, despite the presence of injured eyewitness testimony and the post-mortem report (Ex.P-55) being admitted by the accused.
The Court noted the settled law on acquittal appeals, citing Tota Singh and another v. State of Punjab (AIR 1987 SC 1083), which holds that an appellate court should not interfere if the trial court’s view is “plausible,” unless the finding is “vitiated by some manifest illegality” or is “perverse.”
The Bench observed that the trial court had acquitted the respondents from the murder charge “only on the basis that the prosecution has not examined the Doctor, who has conducted the postmortem.” The trial court had held that even if the post-mortem report (Ex.P-55) was accepted, “the right of cross-examination… could not be exercised by the accused persons” and that “in the absence of medical witness, Ex. P-55 cannot be used as corroborative evidence.”
The High Court flatly rejected this reasoning. It referred to Section 32(2) of the Evidence Act, stating: “If the Doctor, who held autopsy is dead or is not available for examination, the certificate issued by him, is relevant and admissible under Section 32(2) of the Evidence Act… when a statement written or verbal, is made by a person in the discharge of professional duty whose attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay, the same is relevant and admissible in evidence.”
The Court found the testimonies of the injured eyewitnesses—PW-5 Magan (son), PW-7 Chhotu Ram (father), and PW-8 Vishwasa Bai (wife)—to be “quite clear” and credible. It noted PW-5’s detailed testimony, where he stated: “meanwhile accused Rajano hit his father’s neck with a rod due to which he fell down. After that, accused Jagdish snatched the axe from accused Mahesh and hit his father’s mouth with the axe… Mahesh cut his father’s neck completely with sickle. Mahesh took axe from Jagdish and hit it on his father’s neck.”
The High Court concluded that the trial court’s approach was flawed, stating: “Such an approach by the trial Court amounts to a perverse finding, as it disregards unimpeached and reliable evidence without any justifiable basis.”
The Bench held that the trial court erred in disbelieving the injured witnesses and acquitting the respondents of murder “only on the basis of non-examination of the Doctor… despite production of the post mortem report of the deceased Arjun under Section 294 CrPC… and the same was admitted by the accused person.”
The Decision
The High Court partly allowed the State’s appeal. While affirming the conviction and sentence under Sections 148, 452, and 323/149 of the IPC, the Court set aside the acquittal under Section 302/149 of the IPC.
“For committing murder of deceased Arjun, accused/respondents are convicted under Section 302/149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each,” the Court ordered.
The respondents were directed to surrender before the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund, within one month to serve the sentence.
