Does the failure of the medical evidence to ascertain the precise cause of death or to find any bony injury, on a body recovered in an advanced state of decomposition, amount to affirmative evidence that the death was not homicidal?

No. Such a limitation on medical corroboration is not affirmative evidence that the deceased died naturally, accidentally, or before he departed with the accused; an estimate of the post-mortem interval in such circumstances is necessarily approximate, and a marginal variation between the prosecution's timeline and the medical estimate is insufficient to override the proved surrounding circumstances.

Evidence Act, 1872 — s.106 — s.27 — Circumstantial evidence — Last seen — Unexplained possession — Chain of circumstances — Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 — s.7A — s.19 — s.20 — Claim of juvenility — Evidence Act, 1872 — Circumstantial evidence — Chain of circumstances complete — Held: A conviction based entirely on circumstantial evidence can be sustained only when each circumstance relied upon is firmly proved, the proved circumstances form a complete chain, and the chain is consistent only with the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with a reasonable hypothesis of innocence; on facts, the last-seen circumstance, the accused's recent and unexplained possession of the deceased's taxi while attempting to dispose of it, and the discovery of the deceased's personal articles at the instance of the appellant formed a complete chain excluding any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. (¶14, 15, 16, 23) Evidence Act, 1872 — s.106 — Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s.313 — Burden especially within knowledge — Held further: The absence of an explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot fill a gap in the prosecution case or relieve the prosecution of its primary burden, but once the foundational facts of last seen and recent, unexplained possession of the deceased's property were independently proved, the failure to furnish any plausible account, viewed with Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872, became an additional link and not a substitute for proof. (¶16, 17) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 — s.7A — s.19 — s.20 — Claim of juvenility raised after final disposal — Held further: Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 permits a claim of juvenility to be raised before any court at any stage, even after final disposal, and a conviction on merits need not be annulled merely because the person was tried by a regular court; however the adult sentence cannot survive, and the juvenile, having already undergone detention beyond the maximum period permissible under Section 15(1)(g) of the Act, shall not be required to surrender or suffer any disqualification attached to the conviction under Section 19. (¶24, 26, 29, 32, 33)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of DINESH KUMAR v. THE STATE OF HARYANA — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India