Kolkata: The Supreme Court’s hearing of the Kolkata doctor’s rape and murder case took a critical turn today as a crucial document for the post-mortem came under scrutiny. Chief Justice DY Chandrachud questioned the whereabouts of the challan, emphasizing that an autopsy cannot proceed without it. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the West Bengal government, admitted that he could not immediately locate the document but promised to return with an update.
The issue was raised after a lawyer inquired whether the victim’s clothing had been included in the autopsy. The Chief Justice highlighted the importance of the document used when the body was transferred for autopsy following the inquest. When Mr. Sibal could not produce it on the spot, the Chief Justice remarked, “It is important because it includes details about the clothes and articles sent with the body. We need to review this.”
- మంత్రి కొండా సురేఖకు నాగార్జున భారీ షాక్..!
- రూ.99కే మద్యం! ఏపీ కొత్త మద్యం పాలసీ
- ఒత్తిడి నుండి మీ గుండెను రక్షించుకోవడానికి 7 మార్గాలు
- కమర్షియల్ LPG సిలిండర్ ధర పెంపు
- ‘దేవుడిని రాజకీయాల్లోకి లాగొద్దు’ నటుడు ప్రకాష్ రాజ్ విజ్ఞప్తి
The Chief Justice noted that the post-mortem team would not accept the body without the challan. “That’s why we need to see it,” he said. Mr. Sibal requested additional time to locate the document, explaining that it was filled out by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and submitted. However, the Chief Justice questioned whether the post-mortem had been conducted without this essential request form. Solicitor General Mehta added that it was a statutory requirement.
Justice JB Pardiwala, part of the three-judge bench with Chief Justice Chandrachud and Justice Manoj Misra, pointed to the post-mortem report and noted that the column for the challan was missing. “There is no reference to the challan when the body was sent for examination. If this document is missing, then something is amiss,” he stated.
The Chief Justice suggested that the CBI should also request this document from the Bengal government. An advocate present mentioned that the document had been submitted during proceedings in the Calcutta High Court. Solicitor General Mehta expressed concern that, without mention in the post-mortem report, the possibility of the document being created later could not be dismissed.
Mr. Sibal assured that no documents were being created retroactively and promised to file an affidavit. The court noted that while the CBI’s case file did not include the challan, it was reportedly produced before the High Court. The counsel for the Bengal government, however, did not have the document.
