Supreme Court explains when death by asphyxia is not made

However, she in her cross examination admitted that if death was caused by asphyxia the eyes would be open and tongue would get protruded and it was likely that the right side of the heart would be full of blood and the left side of the heart would be empty. It was furthermore accepted that at the time of death on account of asphyxia, tardien sport should be found in the eyes and further hypacksia should be found, i.e., the oxygen in the blood pertaining to the atoms would be very much less. The face and head would also be found distended. It was furthermore stated that:

Further there should be mucous in the mouth and throat. Further generally at the time of asphyxia there should be alveonian in the lungs and also idima polute should be found. Further there should be camerine with kolappan with intersenian espeomia. But the aforesaid were not found in the dead body of the deceased in the absence of the aforesaid symptoms there was no opportunity for the deceased to die.

9. We wish the expert would have been forthright in her view in regard to the cause of death. A different conclusion was required to be arrived at keeping in view the fact that a large number of symptoms were absent which ordinarily point out to the cause of death of asphyxia by smothering. Most of the symptoms noticed by Modi should have remained present.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 774 of 2006

Decided On: 13.05.2009

Subramaniam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.B. Sinha and Cyriac Joseph, JJ.

Author: S.B. Sinha, J.

Citation: 2009 INSC 805, MANU/SC/0795/2009,{2010 (1), SCC (Cri) 1392.

Print Page

Supreme court: How to appreciate evidence of doctor who has conducted post mortem if his evidence is self contradictory?

During further cross-examination, PW-8 recognised Keith Simpson as a world authority on medical jurisprudence. But she did not agree with the said Keith Simpson's opinion that Parikh's book is a comprehensive and outstanding book on reference for court work. This reference to Keith Simpson's opinion in Dr. Parikh's book was put to PW-8, to suggest to her that if the hypostasis extends to the head, it may be mistaken as a violence to the neck or smothering as found at page 159 of Dr. Parikh's text-book (4th Edn. 1995). She disagreed with this statement as found in Parikh's book, solely based on her personal experience and not supported by any other authority. While so disagreeing with Parikh's book, she insisted on stating that the horizontal and uniformly hardened and thickened area mentioned by her is injury No. 4 must be due to ligature, even though according to her post mortem report and evidence in the court, she had not seen any ligature marks on the body of Jabeena. {Para 20}

21. The defence has further confronted PW-8 with the statement found in the book "The Essentials of Forensic Medicine" by Dr. K.S. Narayana Reddy to establish the fact, that on decomposition of a body, the gas collects in the subcutaneous tissue and becomes emphysamatous. This would then create a false impression of ante mortem obesity (stout). PW-8 disagreed with this opinion also, without supporting her opinion on the basis of any other authority.Therefore, these suggestions of the defence made to PW-8 cannot be lightly brushed aside. More so, in the background of the fact that PW-8 had conducted the post mortem on Jabeena's 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 has 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 "Lyon's Medical Jurisprudence", Parikh's text book on Medical Jurisprudence, The Essentials of Forensic Medicines by Dr. K.S. Narayana Reddy.

23. 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.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 345 of 1994

Decided On: 20.07.1999

Mohd. Zahid Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

G.B. Pattanaik and N. Santosh Hegde, JJ.

Author: N. Santosh Hegde, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0407/1999, AIR 1999 SUPREME COURT 2416,1999 (8) SCC 638,

Print Page