Brief Facts
- The appellants challenged the judgment of the Madras High Court, which remanded their case for trial after initially being granted discharge by the Additional District and Sessions Judge in 2009. The respondent’s father had filed an FIR in 2004 accusing the appellants of causing the death of his wife during a property dispute. However, the investigating officer concluded that the death was due to natural causes as even as per the post mortem report no external injury was found on the body of the deceased. Thus, filed the negative final report.
- Upon the complaint filed by the son of deceased, the Magistrate Court even recorded the statement of doctor who conduct the post mortem and even he confirmed that the death was natural.
Issues
- Whether the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge conducted a “mini-trial” while considering the discharge application under Section 227 of the CrPC?
Held
- Apex Court allowed the appeal and restored the discharge order passed by the ADJ Court.
- The expert witness examined by the respondent, who admittedly carried out a post-mortem on the body of the deceased, has categorically stated that the death of the deceased was natural. This is coupled with the fact that there were no external injuries found on the body of the deceased.
- After having perused the order of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge dated 9th January 2009, we find that a mini-trial was not conducted. The Court has considered the case within four corners of its limited jurisdiction under Section 227 of the CrPC.
- The version of the respondent’s father who was examined as PW-1 is that one of the appellants hit the deceased with a stick on her chest, and the other appellant repeatedly kicked her on her chest. In the post-mortem, no injury was found on the chest or any other part of the body of the deceased. Therefore, taking the evidence of the respondent’s father and other witnesses as it is, there was no material to proceed against the appellants in the private complaint filed by the respondent’s father. We may also note here that even according to the case of the respondent’s father, there was a dispute between him and the appellants over the property, and the incident occurred when, as per the order of the Civil Court, an attempt was made to survey the property through a government surveyor.
Relevant Para
- 8, 10, 11