4. (g) Coming to the medical evidence, the evidence of PW12, was already referred to supra. Therefore, the medical evidence supports and corroborates the evidence of PWs3, 4 and 9. Though it was sought to be contended that the deceased was addicted to alcohol and that his death was due to consumption of heavy dose of alcohol, the post mortem report does not support the said version as it is stated by the doctor in his evidence that no alcohol was found in the stomach. Though it was sought to be forcefully contended that the word ‘No’ was added later to the relevant sentence in the post mortem report under the influence of the police, in the considered view of this Court, such a contention cannot be countenanced, as when the said aspect was suggested to PW12 in his cross-examination, he had denied any such subsequent addition of the word ‘No’. Further, even if the deceased was in a drunken state at the time of incident that does not give the accused a right to beat the deceased indiscriminately. More over the cause of death is not consumption of heavy dose of alcohol as per the post mortem report. Further, the original stand taken in the defence and suggested to PWs 1 and 2 is that the deceased who was in a drunken state had climbed the temple tower and had died after slipping and falling down from the tower. The said suggestion put to PWs 1 and 2 was denied by them as ‘not true’. According to PW10, the deceased came to
