191. It is further submitted that were it not for gross medical mismanagement by the hospitals and medical staff treating Sgt. Goepamang, he would not have died from injuries. The Complainants submit that during the trial, crucial ballistic analyses and expert medical evidence was adduced by Kobedi‟s defense team revealing contravention of ballistic analysis and gross medical negligence towards Sgt. Goepamang during his time in hospital. In disregarding the medical opinion sought to be adduced by counsel for AC HP R 192. Kobedi to the effect that there was gross negligence in the treatment of the deceased at the hospital without which the deceased would not have died the court of appeal held: “Mr. Spilg did not contend that the negligence of the hospital staff and doctors, assuming there was such negligence , constituted a novus actus interveniens. Nor could he. It is clear on the evidence that the bullet with which he was shot caused the death of the deceased.” 193. As to whether the hospital‟s negligence could be taken into account as an extenuating circumstance the Court of Appeal opined as follows: “In the first place, I am unable to find that there is no doubt that better medical care might have saved the deceased‟s life. This is purely the untested opinion of the medical experts the appellant seeks to call. But, in any event, the conviction for murder included the finding that the appellant intended to kill the deceased or was at least reckless as to whether he did or not. That finding was confirmed by this court of appeal. I am unable to find that the fact that better medical care might have saved the deceased‟s life can be an extenuating circumstance or put otherwise, that there is no doubt, or at least a probability, that a court would find it to be so” 53