2002 Supreme(SC) 988

2002(7) Supreme 172
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Punjab and Haryana High Court)
R.C. Lahoti & Brijesh Kumar, JJ.
Jaipal -Appellant
versus
State of Haryana -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 705 of 2001
Decided on 1-10-2002
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : U.N. Bachawat, Sr. Advocate, Ranbir Singh Yadav, Alok Bachawat and Ajay Kumar, Advocates.
For the Respondents : J.P. Dhanda, Mrs. Raj Rani Dhanda and Sunder Khatri, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution has utterly failed in proving such chain of circumstantial evidence as would fasten the guilt on the accused of having administered poison to the accused, leaving no room for doubt. He is entitled to acquittal despite concurrent conviction recorded by Courts below under Section 302 IPC.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302-Offence of murder of his wife by appellant by administering poison-Case of circumstantial evidence-Trial Court as well as High Court recording conviction-Appeal against-Supreme Court finding missing links in the chain of circumstantial evidence which were filled by overstretching and surmises-Whether appeal be allowed? (Yes)-Case law referred.

       Held : We will take up the third piece of circumstantial evidence as the first and see whether it has been established that the death of Prakash Devi was caused by administering aluminium phosphide (celphos) or by poisoning. We have grave doubts if at all Prakash Devi s death was caused by poisoning. Dr. S.N. Sharma has stated that liver and kidneys of the deceased were congested. Membranes of the brain were congested. Lungs were congested. Frothy fluid was coming out from the larynx and trachea. These symptoms alone could not have persuaded Dr. Sharma to hold that it could have been a case of poisoning. In spite of the availability of such facts the Medical Board was not in a position to opine on the cause of death. It was thought fit to await for the report of forensic science lab examination. He has clearly stated that it is only on the findings made available by pathology of viscera, kidneys, spleen, liver, stomach and blood which would reveal whether there was poisoning. He admitted that the cause for congestion of several organs as mentioned in the post mortem report could be due to other reasons as well. That is why, he had sought for clarification from the FSL so as to ascertain if the patient could have died due to some other poison inasmuch as aluminium phosphide poisoning was absent from the viscera. (Paras 12 and 13)

       Held further : We have doubts about the genuineness of the samples of vomit said to have been seized from two places i.e. inside the house and outside the house. (Para 21)

       Held, therefore : Thus on the state of the evidence as it exists we cannot conclude positively that aluminium phosphide (celphos) was administered to the deceased. This finding has also to be read in the light of very pertinent statement made by Smt. Beena. According to her while the accused and the deceased were busy talking in the inner room, the witness was sitting just outside in the outer room. When she entered in the inner room Prakash Devi complained of feeling uneasy. She never stated that she was administered anything by the accused or anything given by the accused was consumed by the deceased or that anything which the deceased was made to consume by the accused was the cause of her feeling of uneasiness. On the contrary it was in the presence of the witness Smt. Beena that the accused offered to give the deceased a tablet which could remove the feeling of uneasiness. Such tablet according to Smt. Beena was of two colours; its half portion was blue and half portion was white. Such could not have been the colour of celphos tablet. (Para 23)

       Held in addition : We are also not inclined to hold that the accused had the opportunity available to him of administering poison to the deceased. The availability of the second circumstance is also ruled out. (Para 24)

       Held : There is no evidence adduced by the prosecution to hold that the accused had the poison in his possession prior to the time of the incident. (Para 25)

       Held, after referring case law : In this case we do not find any abnormality in the conduct of the accused. He is an educated person, a teacher. If only he had administered any poison to the deceased he would not have gone to the private clinic and government hospital where poisoning as a cause of death would be immediately known or at least strongly suspected by the doctor attending on the victim. Rather the accused wanted to be in the company of the deceased and to have her treated. He attended on her at Navjeevan Hospital and took her to Civil Hospital. It is also noteworthy that the deceased had complained to Smt. Beena of feeling some uneasiness even prior to her having been administered a tablet by the accused. In all probability the deceased had consumed something before coming to meet the accused or may be she had suffered food poisoning or virus infection which could be innocuous. (Paras 28 and 29)

       Relying on AIR 1963 SC 74

       Held : The High Court and the Trial Court have unwittingly fallen into the same dangerous trap which the Constitution Bench has cautioned to be guarded against. We are unhesitatingly of the opinion that the prosecution has utterly failed in proving such chain of circumstantial evidence as would fasten the guilt on the accused leaving no room for doubt. The appeal is allowed. The conviction of the accused under Section 302 IPC and the sentence passed thereon by the Trial court and upheld by the High Court are set aside. The accused-appellant is acquitted. He shall be released forthwith if not require to be detained in any other offence. (Paras 34 and 35)