Treatment-related post-mortem injuries, without corroborative evidence, cannot establish homicidal death.

The prosecution alleged that the deceased and the appellant had married in July 2014. On 7 November 2014, she was travelling in the appellant’s auto when she fell and sustained serious injuries. PW10 and PW12 said they helped take her to hospital, and PW1 was informed that she had been in an accident. She died the following day.

The initial complaint alleged an accident; after the post-mortem recorded injuries around the neck and genitalia, the police altered the offences and filed a final report. The Sessions Court convicted the appellant under Sections 366, 376(B), 302 and 201 read with 302 IPC. He appealed against the conviction and sentence.

Whether the prosecution evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the offences for which he was convicted, including causing the deceased’s death

Whether the medical evidence, considered alongside the evidence about the deceased’s treatment and the witnesses’ accounts, established homicidal death and sexual assault attributable to the appellant

The appeal was brought under Section 415(2) of the BNSS.

The conviction concerned Sections 366, 376(B), 302 and 201 read with 302 of the IPC.

The Court applied the principle that a criminal charge must be established by cogent and concrete evidence and cannot be proved merely by inference; the prosecution evidence must sufficiently connect the accused to the offences.

The Court found that PW10 and PW12 supported the account that the deceased fell from the auto and was taken to hospital with the appellant, while PW1’s initial information was that she had suffered an accident.

It considered the post-mortem findings against the CMC records, which documented severe head injury and intensive treatment, including intubation and ventilation. The Court regarded the neck and genital injuries as potentially treatment-related and found the medical evidence insufficient to establish sexual assault or death by strangulation attributable to the appellant.

It also found no reliable evidence that the appellant had taken the deceased to the alleged place of occurrence and treated the family witnesses’ evidence with caution in light of their opposition to the marriage.

In the Court’s view, the evidence did not establish the charges to the required standard.

any fine paid was ordered to be refunded, his bail bond discharged, and the connected miscellaneous petition closed.