viscera was examined and no poisonous substance found in the body of the deceased Vasudevan. When that be the case, the Doctor, who conducted the autopsy had reserved the final opinion regarding the cause of death. After receipt of chemical examination report regarding poisonous substance were found or not by the Chemical Examiner's Laboratory. After receipt of the final report regarding viscera that no poisonous substance was found, the only possible cause of death as per the Doctor, who conducted postmortem is that the deceased might have died due to heart attack. The age of the deceased on the date of his death is around 50 years. When there are skirmishes and push and pull between the two groups, the one group, who are road side vendors of vegetable and on the other, the Accused party, who had attempted to put up construction in the property that they purchased. Having obtained approved permission to proceed with construction and approved plan regarding construction, which was objected to by the vendors, who are encroaching pavements adjoining the said way, the family of the Accused had purchased the property vide Ex.P-21 and attempted to put up construction. The objection by the vendors of Pudukottai Town cannot at all be accepted. There had been push and pull between two groups, in which, the deceased Vasudevan fell unconscious. Therefore, he was taken by P.W-17-Auto-Rickshaw driver to the Government Hospital, Pudukottai, where, he was declared brought dead. When the reasons are not known, it is common knowledge available to the general people as well as the Doctor. Therefore, the cause of death as mentioned in the postmortem is heart attack. When there is no visible injury on the body of the deceased Vasudevan, when the ribs and limbs of deceased Vasudevan had not suffered any fracture, the finding of the learned Trial Judge that action of the Accused 2 and 3, the Appellants herein, had caused the death of Vasudevan attracting offences under Section 304(ii) IPC cannot at all be accepted as reasonable in the eyes of the law and in the light of Indian Evidence Act. Not only that, the P.W-18Investigation Officer, had conducted inquest over the body of the deceased Vasudevan in the presence of Panchayatdars. In inquest is available under Ex.P-19, wherein, it has been observed that there was no visible injury on any part of the body. When there is no visible injury as per postmortem report and as per the inquest report, the cause of death is not known. The Accused and the complainants had indulged in skirmishes and push and pull, in which, Vasudevan had lost balance and fell down. While falling down, he may have suffered heart attack. At the time of death, he was aged around 50 years, therefore, those, who have crossed 40, there are reports that many of them who had crossed forty, suffer heart problems, because, of our present day tension and life style. Therefore, the only presumption that the Court can draw regarding the death of deceased Vasudevan is that he had suffered heart attack. When there is no visible injury suffered by the victim of crime the only presumption available is in favour of Accused 2 and Accused 3 that can arrive. Therefore, the findings of the guilt https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
