Ramdas vs State Of Maharashtra - 1977 Supreme(SC) 91

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1977 Supreme(SC) 91

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.N. BHAGWATI AND S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ.
Ram Das, Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 243 of 1976,
D/- 14-2-1977.
Advocates appeared
Mr. M. N. Phadke, Sr. Advocate (Mr. S. Balakrishnan, Advocate with him), for Appellant; Mr. H. R. Khanna, Advocate, for Mr. M. N. Shroff, Advocate, for Respondent.

Advocates:
H.R.KHANNA, M.N.Phadke, M.N.SHROFF, S.BALAKRISHNAN

Headnote:
Sentenced him to imprisonment – Circumstantial evidence – Claim of compensation - Father of deceased came to know of the death after she had been cremated. It was further alleged by the prosecution that as refused to take away with him, the appellant decided to kill her and for that purpose he secured rat poison, namely, parathion, from one of his and forcibly administered the said poison to his wife which ultimately resulted in her death. During the course of investigation the appellant is said to have produced a bottle of poison as also which contained vomit matter and vomit stains of the deceased which on being sent to the Chemical were found to contain parathion poison - It was further alleged that near about the time of occurrence the appellant and were alone in the house and no one else other than the accused could have caused the death of medical evidence clearly shows that had died of asphyxia due to administration of poison and had excluded possibility of death by strangulation – Held, High Court observed that there was nothing to show that parathion poison taken by the appellant from had been used in killing the rats and, therefore, it must be presumed that it was used in administering the same to the deceased - This observation is based on pure speculation. No evidence has been led by the prosecution about the exact quantity which gave to the appellant, apart from the fact that it was a tea spoonful. There was also nothing to show as to how much quantity of the tea spoonful was given by to the accused, how much was left and how much was used. In order to kill rats a heavy quantity of poison is not at all necessary and according to the medical evidence to kill a man was sufficient and so far a rat is concerned would be enough. In these circumstances, therefore, the High Court was in error in indulging in pure surmises and speculation on this point - Last and the most important circumstance on which reliance was placed by the High Court and which undoubtedly needs explanation was the fact that the accused produced the bottle of poison which had been concealed inside a pit which had been dug in the compound of the house. This bottle was recovered at the instance of the appellant almost a week after the death of the deceased. It is true that while this circumstance may raise an inference of guilt against the accused, it may also be explainable on the ground that after the Investigating Officer visited the house and after the deceased had died and the post-mortem revealed that she had died of a poison, the accused may have got frightened that as he was alone with the deceased he might be accused of having administered the poison, to his wife himself. Thus out of fear of being arrested on a charge of murder he may have concealed the bottle in the pit from where it was recovered - This circumstance, therefore, leads to two equally possible inferences and as one inference goes in favour of the accused, the Court in acting on circumstantial evidence was in law bound to accept that inference. We, however, disagree with the finding of the Sessions Judge that the prosecution had not proved that it was parathion poison which had caused the death of the deceased which has been established beyond reasonable doubt, particularly from the fact that having vomit stains of the deceased was found to contain parathion poison which clearly shows whether the deceased was murdered by the accused or committed suicide it must have been through parathion poison - Appeal allowed

Judgment

FAZAL ALI, J.:- This is an appeal under the SC (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act. 1970. The appellant Ram Das was tried on a charge of murdering his wife Mst. Shanta Bai on September 12, 1972, by forcible administration of poison to her. The learned Sessions, Judge, after considering entire evidence on the record, acquitted the appellant on the ground that the evidence led by the prosecution was not sufficient to bring home the charge against the accused. Thereupon the State of Maharashtra filed an appeal before the High Court of Bombay. The High Court reversed the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge in favour of the appellant and has convicted the appellant under Section 302 I. P. C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. Hence this appeal before us.

2. This is rather an unfortunate case where shortly after the marriage of the deceased shantabai with the appellant Ram Das certain unforeseen circumstances came into existence which led the appellant to suspect the fidelity of his wife culminating in her death by poison. The sole question to be determined by us in the present appeal is whether the accused had caused the death of his wife by administering her poison or the wife had herself, due to complete frustration, taken the poison and thus committed suicide. Had the husband not come across some letters written by his wife to one Chhotelal, perhaps the happy married life of the deceased and Ram Das would not have been marred by this tragedy.

3. Put briefly, the prosecution case is as follows. Shantabai used to live with her father Vishwanath Pardhe at Delhi and stayed there for about 1 1/2 years before her marriage. It is alleged by the prosecution that during her stay at Delhi she had picked up some sort of intimacy with one Chhotelal with whom she was sometimes in correspondence. She however, did not prosecute her studies in her school and was therefore, sent to her uncle Mahadeo Pardhe at Pinpalkhota where she stayed with her uncle until her marriage. She was married to the appellant some time in May 1972 and after the marriage she came back to her uncles place and was later again taken by her husband, to his house in Achalpur according to the family custom. It appears that soon after her return to her husbands house the appellant discovered some letters which suggested that the deceased has some intimacy with Chhotelal and that she had asked him not to disturb her after her marriage. Ram Das, therefore,started suspecting the fidelity of his wife and he accordingly wrote several letters to Mahadeo Pardhe meant for his father-in-law Vishwanath Pardhe asking him to take away his wife, otherwise he would seek a divorce. The letters showed that the appellant was rather anxious that his wife should leave the house and go to her uncle and thereafter the marriage may be dissolved either by agreement or through the Court Mahadeo Pardhe on receiving the letters came to Achalpur and met Ram Das when the appellant again insisted that Shantabai should be taken away by him. In the course of the evidence Mahadeo Pardhe alleged that the appellant went to the extent of giving a threat that if he did not take Shantabai, then the accused was going to murder her. Mahadeo Pardhe, however, did not think it advisable to take Shantabai without the consent of her father and he returned to his village Pimpalkhota and wrote a detailed letter to his brother Vishwanath Pardhe at Delhi. On September 12, 1972, there appears to have been some sort of a domestic dispute between the appellant and the deceased as a result of which the appellant beat her up with a stick. On the same day the deceased became seriously ill and had vomitted near about 2-00 P.M. The appellant at once took her to the Civil Hospital at Achalpur where the Doctor gave the deceased full treatment, but unfortunately she could not survive and died in the afternoon. The Doctor then informed the police station and the Investigating Office

Click Here to Read the rest of this document