IMPORTANT POINT
When the doctor has expressed two views and if homicide is not completely ruled out, it must be held that the death of the deceased was homicide only when the entire circumstantial evidence points to homicide only and the medical evidence is not to the contrary.

Headnote:(i) APPEAL AGAINST ACQUITTAL-Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302 and 201-Appeal against judgment of High Court setting aside that of Sessions Judge and acquitting respondent of the charges under-Unnatural death-Respondent, husband of the deceased was the only other occupant of the house in which she met with unnatural end-His varied explanations for sleeping separately outside the house are totally unbelievable-Evidence showing struggle before her death-Conduct of respondent in rushing to police station without finding out whether she was dead-Mangalsutra was not on neck of deceased but it was with respondent-Respondent had strong motive to put her out of the way-He was never interested in living with his wife-Deceased had a strong mental frame and was keen on living with her husband-Entire circumstantial evidence points to homicide only-Judgment of conviction restored. (Paras 14, 15)
       (ii) CRIMINAL TRIAL-Medical evidence-Unnatural death-When doctor expressed two views-One that is favourable to accused must be taken into account-But medical evidence cannot be considered in isolation-Doctors evidence must be taken in conjunction with all circumstantial evidence on record-When entire circumstantial evidence points to homicide only-If homicide not completely ruled out by doctors-Held, death was homicidal only. (Para 15)
       (iii) SERVICE LAW-Respondent working as Assistant Professor in a Government College-His conviction u/s 302 IPC for committing murder of his wife-Dismissal from service under Rule 17(c) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (C & A) Rules-High Court set aside judgment of conviction-Respondent made representation to reinstate him in service-Order of reinstatement-Appeal against his acquittal-This Court granted Special Leave and directed issue of bailable warrants-Order of suspension-Challenged-Application filed by respondent allowed-State filed application for leave-Conviction and sentence awarded by Court of Session restored as against respondent-Order of his dismissal from service also restored. (Paras 17, 18)

JUDGMENT

M. Srinivasan. J.-The appeal is by the State Government against the judgment of the High Court of Madras setting aside that of the Additional Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore and acquitting the respondent of the charges under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The Special Leave Petition was filed earlier by the brother of the deceased Nagammal against the same judgment of the High Court. After granting permission to the petitioner to file the S.L.P., notice was ordered by this Court in the S.L.P. and later directed to be tagged on to the above appeal.

2. The respondent was working as Assistant Professor of Mathematics in Udumalpet College. He married Nagammal on 12.3.76. After marriage, he got transferred to a college in Tirupur. Nagammal became an Assistant Professor in Vellalar College, Erode. Though the respondent was highly educated, he was insisting on her resigning her job and living with him as house wife. Besides, he along with his parents was making repeated demands for dowry in the shape of household articles. As regards their married life, the High Court has observed thus :

"It is true that the family life of Nagammal proved to be miserable. From the beginning there was misunderstanding between the couple and only for short intermittent periods they had lived together. Besides the jewels and cash received by him at the time of marriage, the appellant had been insisting that his wife should bring household articles necessary to set up a new family establishment at Tirupur. While the parents of the appellant were adamant that her daughter-in-law should resign her job, Nagammal very much liked to be a working woman. It is the appellant who initiated divorce proceedings against the deceased. A reading of Ex. P-2 the counter filed by Nagammal would go to show that even though she was not prepared to quit the job, she was equally anxious that she should live with her husband happily. Her statement in the counter that she had not done any wrong to her husband and that she begs him to forget and forgive if he had entertained or found any mistake committed by her reveals her state of mind."

3. In the petition for divorce referred to by the High Court in the above passage, the respondent had stated that his wife left his house on 8.7.76 with her father and alleged that on 14.8.76, her father and brothers came to his house along with her and by using force and violence took away with them jewels worth about 3½ sovereigns after attacking him and his mother. He introduced an innuendo in Para 4 of his petition as follows:

"The marriage for her was obviously intended to enable the respondent to go about with greater freedom as a married women.

That discloses the cynic in him.

4. That petition was filed on 24.11.1978. His wife Nagammal filed her counter on 12.3.79 expressing her anxiety to live with him. The matter was being adjourned number of times on the ground that both counsel were not ready. On 21.6.82, the Court after noticing that both sides were not ready adjourned it finally to 8.7.82. On the latter date it was represented to the Court that the respondent therein had committed suicide. However, the petition was dismissed for default as the petitioner therein was absent. It is necessary to note that though the respondent claimed to have taken her back and started living with her from 12.9.81, he did not withdraw the petition. According to PW7, he refused to withdraw the petition. This shows that the respondent had a motive for not withdrawing the petition.

5. It is in evidence that though the respondent and his wife resumed their family life in September 1981, they got separated again in December 1981 and joined sometime in April. On 27.6.1982, they came to live in the house in which Nagammal was living till then with her friend and colleague, PW 6 Vasanthamani, in order to enable the couple to live together, PW 6 shifted to another house nearby. Within five days thereafter Nagammal s life mot with an unnatural end.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1997 Supreme(SC) 1564

IMPORTANT POINTWhen the doctor has expressed two views and if homicide is not completely ruled out, it must be held that the death of the deceased was homicide only when the entire circumstantial evidence points to homicide only and the medical evidence is not to the contrary.

Cases Referred (4)

IMPORTANT POINT
When the doctor has expressed two views and if homicide is not completely ruled out, it must be held that the death of the deceased was homicide only when the entire circumstantial evidence points to homicide only and the medical evidence is not to the contrary.