AMIN BHABHA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Dr. Bhabha has been charge sheeted for committing an offence u/s 201 IPC for having given an opinion in the post mortem examination report about deceased Mithilabai that she died as a result of shock and haemorrhage resulting from bum injuries. She had 90% burnt. The post mortem examination shows that the cause of death was due to shock and bum. This report is signed by 2 doctors, by Dr. Bhabha the present petitioner and Dr. G.K. Singhania who is not an accused. It appears to be joint autopsy by them.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that accused Radhabai and Arun Kumar caused the death of Mithilabai on 9.11.82 by strangulation in pursuance of their common intention and burnt the body. The al1egation is that the autopsy report 11.11.82 is deliberately false to protect the accused; The prosecution sent the report about al1 the circumstances revealed in the case from evidence collected including the photographs to Director of Medical Institute, Govt. of M.P. for expert opinion. They gave their report on the basis of police history, marg intimatiqn, copy of panchnama, copy of post mortem report, quarries raised by the investigating officer, map of the spot, photographs and negatives, sealed packet containing clothings. This expert opinion suggests that the pattern of bums are against suicidal bums as there was no movement in the body as the back buttocks are safe and the direction of soot also confirmed that the deceased was lying down and burning. The direction of soot was at right angle to the body's long axis. It was noted that there was no soot in the trachea and ante mortem bums were not recorded in the blood, suggesting that during the burns the victim was not breathing. The absence of burns in groins and axilla also suggests that there was no movement during the bums. So the opinion was that the bums were post mortem and death could be by any other means than the bums and the victim did not move during the bums. So it was a case of homicidal death with attempt to camaflouage with bums. The accidential burns were ruled out.

(3.) THE contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the autopsy surgeon had noticed CCP in the larin and trachea, of course membrain was brownish. It is argued that the word 'CCP' against the coloumn of larin and trachea had been misread by the expert. This presence of carbon particles in the larin would suggest breathing during burning resulting inhalting carbon particles. It is also argued that the opinion could not be said to be unjustified and the doctors had to be given chance to prove their opinion as expert. Merely because another opinion had come on record it could not be said that the earlier opinion was deliberately false to screen the offender. In any case the trial Court would be free to take action for offence u/s 193 IPC for giving false evidence, if the evidence of post mortem report given by the petitioner is found false.