IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN
Present
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.14613 of 2014
Between:
Meda Lakshmi Kiran @ Kiranmye, W/o. Venugopal Rao, Aged about: 46 years, Residing at D.No.80206, 2nd Line, Butchaiahthota, Guntur-1.
.. Petitioner AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Medical & Health Department, A.P. Secretariat, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad & 6 others .. Respondents
The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.14613 of 2014
ORDER:
The case of the petitioner is that she married the 7th respondent in the year 1990. 7th respondent is also a doctor and runs a hospital in Guntur. They were blessed with one daughter. Petitioner later came to know that 7th responded already married Dr.T. Padmaja Rani. Petitioner also suspected the character of 7th respondent. Differences have become more vocal by the year 2011 and they were not living together since the year 2011. She joined in MBBS course. The 7th respondent instigated her daughter against her. A false complaint was filed with the Superintendent of Police, Guntur against petitioner and her relatives. Daughter used to pick up quarrel with her at the instance of 7th respondent. Her daughter fell in love with one Vivekananda Reddy. Petitioner warned against such affair. Her daughter left her and started living with 7th respondent and his first wife. In the meantime, by coercion most of the properties got transferred in the name of her daughter just leaving one house to her. The daughter of the petitioner and 7th respondent died in suspicious circumstances on 11.02.2014. It was alleged that the daughter jumped from the bridge over Krishna River in Vijayawada and died. A suicide note was recovered from her, which attributed the cause of death to the petitioner and her relatives. On 12.02.2014, post-mortem was conducted and immediately thereafter, the body was buried. It was written in the Post-mortem report that the cause of death is injury to the head due to blunt force. Though the petitioner has requested for conducting re-post-mortem expressing doubts about the manner in which the post-mortem was conducted, the request was not acceded to. Hence, this writ petition.
2. The 7th respondent denied various allegations made by the petitioner. However, there is no denial of status of deceased. It is the assertion of this respondent that the petitioner has not come with clean hands and the institution of writ petition is intended to delay the criminal proceedings. In para 7 of the counter affidavit filed by the 7th respondent, the 7th respondent stated that his first wife was not working in the Government General Hospital, Mangalagiri, but was working at the TB Sanatorium Hospital, Mangalagiri, and that she was nothing to do with the Government General Hospital and, therefore, she was no way concerned with conducting the post-mortem.
3. To dispute the said contention of the 7th respondent, additional material papers are filed along with W.P.M.P.No.28200 of 2014. On information sought, the Sub-Treasury Officer in proceedings Rc.No.377/A2/14, dated 24.07.2014, informed the applicant that Smt. T. Padmaja Rani was the Drawing and Disbursing Officer for the Government General Hospital, Mangalagiri, and the TB Sanatorium, Mangalagiri.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that post-mortem was not conducted properly. That the relationship of petitioner and the 7th respondent strained and the deceased was living with her father. 7th respondent has another wife. Relying on the documents filed along with WPMP No 28200 of 2014, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the first wife of the 7th respondent was the Medical Officer In-charge of the Government General Hospital, Mangalagiri in addition to the TB Sanatorium Hospital, Mangalagiri and as in-charge of the Government General Hospital, she manipulated the post-mortem report and secretly ensured burying of the body to eliminate any possibility of finding out the truth. Learned counsel further submits that the panchanama report only shows a leg injury. The post-mortem report does not correctly reflect the cause of death. The record is created only to implicate the petitioner. Petitioner was not allowed to go near the dead body. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there was no occasion for the petitioner to harass the petitioner as she was living with 7th respondent and petitioner has serious reservations on cause of death. With an intention to implicate the petitioner and put her in jail, the 7th respondent, in connivance with the first wife, manipulated the cause of death and the petitioner suspects that there is every possibility of the cause of death by other means. Truth can come out only if proper post-mortem is conducted. He, therefore, submits that it is an eminently fit case where a re-post-mortem shall be conducted. By conducting re-post-mortem, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents.
5. Sri Ch. Prahalad Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the 7th respondent submits that the allegations are false. There is no truth in the allegation of manipulation of post- mortem. The post-mortem only indicates the cause of death as blunt injury. Since the daughter of the petitioner has committed suicide by jumping from the bridge from the very high place, naturally it would result in cause of blunt injury and that is what is shown and on the contrary when panchanama is drawn, whatever is noticed for the naked eye is only recorded in the panchanama. Panchanama cannot correctly disclose the nature of injuries. The panchanama cannot reflect the internal injuries caused, whereas the post-mortem report would indicate the actual cause of death and injuries internally caused. Therefore, no reliance can be made on the panchanama report to say that the post-mortem report was not validly drawn. It is further contended that allegation of petitioner being responsible for daughter committing suicide is entirely different from contents of post-mortem report.
6. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the 7th respondent placed reliance on decision of Supreme Court in the case of JEEWAN AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF
[1] UTTARAKHAND
. The Supreme Court held that even an omission or discrepancy in the inquest report may not be fatal to the case of the prosecution. The Court would have to examine the entire case and discuss the prosecution evidence in its entirety to examine the real impact of a material contradiction upon the case of the prosecution.
7. It appears that there are serious differences between the petitioner and 7th respondent and 7th respondent is having another wife. Petitioner apprehends that cause of death is not reflected correctly in the post mortem report and the first wife of 7th respondent was responsible for such report. In criminal proceedings, the fundamental principle of criminal law is that no innocent should be punished and similarly justice requires that the truth should come out properly. To ascertain the correct cause of death, if a re-post-mortem is conducted, it does not cause any prejudice to any person, but it would help in ascertaining the truth. Hence, by conducting a re-post-mortem, the 7th respondent will not be subjected to any prejudice. On the contrary, if the re-post-mortem would show the possibility of any other cause of death, it would only ensure conducting a fair trial and arriving at the truth. Thus, it cannot be said that the request of the petitioner to order for re-post-mortem is not valid.
8. In ZAHIRA HABIBULLAH SHEIKH (5) Vs. STATE OF
[2] GUJARAT
, the Supreme Court held as under:
“33. The principle of fair trial now informs and energises many areas of the law. It is reflected in numerous rules and practices. It is a constant, ongoing development process continually adapted to new changing circumstances, and exigencies of the situation-peculiar at times and related to the nature of crime, persons involved-directly or
operating behind, social impact and societal needs and even so many powerful balancing factors which may come in the way of administration of criminal justice system.
34. As will presently appear, the principle of a fair trial manifests itself in virtually every aspect of our practice and procedure, including the law of evidence. There is, however, an overriding and, perhaps, unifying principle. As Deane, J. put it:
‘It is desirable that the requirement of fairness be separately identified since it transcends the context of more particularised legal rules and principles and provides the ultimate rationale and touchstone of the rules and practices which the common law requires to be observed in the administration of the substantive criminal law.’
35. This Court has often emphasised that in a criminal case the fate of the proceedings cannot always be left entirely in the hands of the parties, crime being public wrong in breach and violation of public rights and duties, which affects the whole community as a community and is harmful to society in general. The concept of fair trial entails familiar triangulation of interests of the accused, the victim and the society and it is the community that acts through the State and prosecuting agencies. Interest of society is not to be treated completely with disdain and as persona non grata. The courts have always been considered to have an overriding duty to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice-often referred to as the duty to vindicate and uphold the ‘majesty of the law’. Due administration of justice has always been viewed as a continuous process, not confined to determination of the particular case, protecting its ability to function as a court of law in the future as in the case before it. If a criminal court is to be an effective instrument in dispensing justice, the Presiding Judge must cease to be a spectator and a mere recording machine by becoming a participant in the trial evincing intelligence, active interest and elicit all relevant materials necessary for reaching the correct conclusion, to find out the truth, and administer justice with fairness and impartiality both to the parties and to the community it serves. The courts administering criminal justice cannot turn a blind eye to vexatious or oppressive conduct that has occurred in relation to proceedings, even if a fair trial is still possible, except at the risk of undermining the fair name and standing of the judges as impartial and independent adjudicators.”
9. In the peculiar facts of this case, it cannot be said that the apprehension expressed by the petitioner is ill-founded. It is a categorical assertion of the petitioner that at the relevant time the first wife of the 7th respondent (husband of the petitioner) was the Medical Officer In-charge of Government General Hospital, Mangalagiri, where post-mortem was conducted. The petitioner apprehends that only to implicate her, report of the post-mortem was manipulated. What is the object of inquest report and its efficacy is an issue to be considered during the trial, but the apprehension expressed by the petitioner, which is on the manner of preparation of post-mortem report can be attended to only if re-post-mortem is conducted. As held by the Supreme Court in the above decision, conducting of re-post- mortem would only provide safeguards of fair trial. Criminal trial is meant for doing justice to the accused, the society and fair chance to prove for the prosecution. Thus, I am of the opinion that it is eminently fit case to order re-post-mortem to the body of the deceased daughter of the petitioner and the 7th respondent.
10. The Superintendent, Government General Hospital, Guntur (5th respondent) is directed to conduct re-post-mortem on the body of deceased Krishna Priya that was buried. The Station House Officer, Tadepalli Police Station, Guntur District (4th respondent) shall provide required assistance to the Superintendent, Government General Hospital, Guntur(5th respondent). The body shall be exhumed by following due procedure. The exhuming of the body and conducting of re-post-mortem shall be video graphed. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
11. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.
P.NAVEEN RAO, J Date: 8th August, 2014
Note: Issue C.C. in one (1) week. (B/o.)
KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.14613 of 2014
Date: 8th August, 2014 kl
[1] 2013 (2) ALT (Crl.) 228 (SC)
[2] (2006) 3 SCC 374