Supreme Court quashes charges due to lack of evidence in murder case: Ramalingam vs. N. Viswanathan (2024) INSC 45 (18 January 2024)

Date of the Judgment: 18 January 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 45
Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Ujjal Bhuyan, J.
Can a criminal case proceed when the primary evidence, a post-mortem report, contradicts the allegations of physical assault? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent criminal appeal, ultimately quashing charges against the accused. The court emphasized the importance of medical evidence in determining the cause of death and found that the High Court of Judicature at Madras had erred in ordering a trial based on insufficient evidence. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.

Case Background

The case originated from a First Information Report (FIR) lodged by Nanjundan, the father of the respondent, N. Viswanathan, on 9th October 2004. The FIR alleged that the appellants had committed offenses under Sections 341, 323, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint stemmed from an incident that occurred when the appellants, along with a village munsif and a surveyor, arrived at Nanjundan’s property to conduct a survey based on a civil suit filed by the first appellant. During this, the deceased, Siddammal, Nanjundan’s wife, tried to stop them. It was alleged that the first appellant incited the second appellant to attack Siddammal, who was then assaulted with a stick and kicked by the appellants. Siddammal later died in the hospital.

Following an investigation, the investigating officer submitted a final report on 22nd December 2004, stating that Siddammal’s death was due to natural causes and that the appellants were falsely implicated due to prior enmity. Instead of filing a protest petition, Nanjundan filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), repeating the allegations from the FIR. The Judicial Magistrate recorded evidence, including that of the doctor who conducted the post-mortem, who stated the death was natural.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the Judicial Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), citing that the death was not proven to be homicidal. However, the High Court of Judicature at Madras, in a petition filed by Nanjundan, set aside the Magistrate’s order on 18th September 2007, without issuing notice to the appellants. Subsequently, the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem, discharged the appellants under Section 227 of the CrPC on 9th January 2009. The High Court reversed this order on 20th December 2018, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation and application of Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which deals with the discharge of an accused when there is insufficient evidence to proceed with a trial. It states:
“If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.”

Additionally, Section 200 of the CrPC, which allows for the filing of a private complaint, was also relevant. It states:
“A Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate.”

Arguments

Arguments of the Appellants:

• The appellants argued that the post-mortem certificate dated 10th October 2004, clearly stated that there were no ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased.
• They emphasized that the final opinion on the cause of death was reserved pending chemical examiner’s and histo-pathological reports, which were never placed on record.
• The appellants highlighted the deposition of Dr. R. Vallinayagam, who conducted the post-mortem, stating that the death was due to a tear in the heart caused by heart disease, and not due to any external injury.
• They contended that the respondent’s father’s case was false, as the medical evidence did not support the allegations of assault.

Arguments of the Respondent:

• The respondent argued that his father was entitled to file a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), despite not filing a protest petition.
• He submitted that the question of the appellants’ responsibility for the death of the deceased could only be determined after a full trial.
• He contended that the High Court was correct in remanding the case for trial.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

• Whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the order of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem, who had discharged the appellants under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Legal Provisions

• Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): This section empowers a judge to discharge an accused if there is insufficient evidence to proceed with the trial.
• Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): This section allows a Magistrate to take cognizance of an offense based on a private complaint.
• Sections 341, 323 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code: These sections pertain to punishment for wrongful restraint, voluntarily causing hurt and murder respectively.

Authorities Table

Judgment

Treatment of Submissions

Treatment of Authorities

The Court relied on the provisions of Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) to determine that the Additional District and Sessions Judge was correct in discharging the appellants. The Court held that there was no sufficient ground to proceed against the accused, given the medical evidence and the lack of external injuries on the body of the deceased.

The Court acknowledged the right to file a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), but clarified that such a complaint must be based on sufficient evidence. In this case, the Court found that the evidence was insufficient to establish a case against the accused.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the medical evidence, particularly the post-mortem report and the testimony of the doctor who conducted the post-mortem. The absence of any ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased, coupled with the doctor’s statement that the death was due to a heart condition, weighed heavily in favor of discharging the appellants. The Court emphasized that the allegations of assault were not supported by any medical evidence and therefore, there was no basis to proceed with a trial. The Court also noted that the High Court had completely ignored the doctor’s evidence.

Sentiment Analysis Table

Fact:Law Ratio Table

Logical Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the following points:

• The post-mortem certificate clearly stated that there were no ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased.
• The doctor who conducted the post-mortem testified that the death was due to a tear in the heart caused by heart disease, and not due to any external injury.
• The High Court had overlooked the doctor’s evidence and had erred in ordering a trial.
• The Court emphasized that there was no material to proceed against the appellants in the private complaint filed by the respondent’s father.

The Court quoted the doctor’s testimony, “In my report, I have given a report that there are no external injuries. There was a tear in the heart of about 0lx.5 cm. This tear was caused because of the heart disease. So, I did not take this as an injury. I have told in the report that death has occurred only due to the above reason. I have stated in the report that 100 grams of clotted blood was present surrounding the heart. Police have enquired me in this regard. During the enquiry, I have stated that death has occurred due to the tear in the heart, the wall of the heart was weak, due to blood flow and shock and stated that the death is a natural one.”

The Court noted that, “The High Court, even after referring to the post -mortem certificate, has completely ignored the doctor’s evidence.”

The Court further stated that, “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.”

Key Takeaways

• Medical evidence, especially post-mortem reports and expert testimony, is crucial in determining the cause of death in criminal cases.
• Private complaints under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), must be supported by sufficient evidence to proceed with a trial.
• Courts should not order a trial if the primary evidence contradicts the allegations made in the complaint.
• High Courts must carefully consider all evidence, including medical reports and expert testimony, when reviewing orders of lower courts.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras and restored the order of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem, dated 9th January 2009, which had discharged the appellants under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a criminal trial cannot be initiated or continued when the primary medical evidence, such as a post-mortem report and the testimony of the doctor, contradicts the allegations of assault. The Supreme Court emphasized that courts must not ignore medical evidence and must ensure that there is sufficient material to proceed against an accused, especially in private complaints.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order and restoring the order of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem. The Court emphasized that the post-mortem report and the doctor’s testimony clearly indicated that the death was due to natural causes and not due to any assault. The Court held that there was no material to proceed against the appellants, thereby quashing the charges.