High Court calls autopsy ‘unprofessional & disgraceful’; 3 acquitted of murder charges

Kolkata: Observing that the autopsy report was “unprofessional and disgraceful” while the prosecution grossly failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, Calcutta High Court acquitted three accused in a case where a mother and her two minor daughters were allegedly burnt to death at the matrimonial house.

The bench of Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta was moved by the accused persons, challenging the trial court judgement which awarded them rigorous imprisonment till death on charges of murder. They were also convicted for cruelty towards a married woman and causing evidence of offence to disappear or giving false information. In February 2009, a mother and her two daughters burnt to death on the terrace of the matrimonial house. One of the daughters died on the way to hospital. Complaint lodged by the mother of the deceased wife suspected either murder by in-laws or torture which drove her daughter to kill her children and commit suicide.

The court observed that the trial court based the impugned judgment and order wholly on conjecture and surmise. Only one link in the chain of circumstances was proved. Autopsy doctor stated death was due to shock from burn injuries after attempted strangulation which is homicidally and antemortem in nature. He stated he smelt kerosene from the bodies. Court observed the autopsy doctor did not carry any instruments to the morgue for autopsy. He didn’t have any training for autopsy. The bodies were dissected by a dom (corpse handler) who was unqualified for the same. The autopsy doctor couldn’t explain why he used “asphyxia” in the report and admitted that strangulation was his own visual inference. The brother of the deceased, who was staying at his sister’s matrimonial home on the incident day, was the star witness of prosecution since he allegedly saw his sister and her daughters being dragged to the terrace by the in-laws but deposed that he was thrown out of the house. There was no explanation why he didn’t help douse the fire when he regained access to the house. Court observed that neither of the two investigating officers recorded his version in the inquest report nor in the FIR, and also not by a statement under section 161 CrPC. His statement under Section 164 CrPC (before magistrate) was the outcome of an afterthought.

Court observed that the appellants wouldn’t have chosen the roof of the house to commit the act in question since the roof is open to the sky and visible to one and all.

There was no clear evidence of three of the appellants, including husband, presence in the house at the time of occurrence.