1991 Supreme(SC) 439

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

S.R. PANDIAN AND K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, JJ.
Bhagwan Swarup and another, Appellants

Versus

State of Rajasthan, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No.303 of 1984

Decided on 28-8-1991.

IMPORTANT POINTEven in the case of a suicide there is an obligation on the person, who knows or has reason to believe that such a suicidal death has occurred, to give information.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302/34 Conviction under - Appeal against - Deceased was wife of A2 and daughter-in-law of Al Circumstantial evidence only - The dead body was found in the house of Al and A2 where the deceased was also living - She used to confine herself to that room - She was sick and unhealthy - Al and A2 were not in the house at the time of death - The trial court has doubted the prosecution case that the death was homicidal - There is no other evidence to show that as to who could have caused the death of the deceased if it is held to be homicidal - The trial Court rightly felt that there was a reasonable doubt about the cause of death also and accordingly acquitted the accused - The High Court has grossly erred in holding that Al & A2 entered into conspiracy merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises drawn - Order of acquittal.

       Held: We are unable to say as to on what basis the High Court could reach the conclusion that on 11th March, 1982 itself both A 1 and A2 committed the murder of the deceased and left the dead body. Such a conclusion should be based on acceptable evidence. There is absolutely no material that the deceased was murdered on 11th March, 1982 itself. The medical evidence simply states that the death could have taken place 4 to 8 days prior to post-mortem. D.W.2, the daughter, is categorical that her mother, the deceased, was alive till 16th March, 1982, and that being the nature of the evidence of record, we are unable to appreciate the above conclusion of the High Court purely based on suspicion and surmises. Further, the learned Judges of the High Court have mentioned in the above passage that both the accused conspired to commit the murder of deceased and having conspired they themselves committed the murder. In our view there is no evidence worth mentioning to establish these offences. (Paras 10 & 11)

       Naturally in a case of this nature, the question that arises from a laymans point of view is: then who else could have committed the murder in the house itself? Perhaps, if A1 and A2 were present in the house on the day of homicide then the situation would have been different and both of them would have been under an obligation to give an explanation and the absence of a plausible explanation or giving a false explanation could have been very much incriminating against them. The same, coupled with other circumstances would have perhaps brought home the guilt to the accused. But the circumstances are different now. A1 and A2 were away from the house. The medical evidence does not at all support that the murder, assuming it to be one, could have taken place on 11th March itself as conjectured by the High Court. If the murder has taken place some time after 11th March, then A1 and A2 cannot directly be connected with the murder. That being so, unless conspiracy as such is established, they cannot be held liable. Then the other inmates in the house are only the mother-in-law and the children of the deceased. None of them was suspected and at any rate no one of them was charge-sheeted or tried. Therefore, the question of anyone of them being held responsible for the death does not arise. No doubt a grave suspicion does arise namely that some of the inmates of the house must have been responsible and an accused finger can be pointed against A1 and A2 but from 11th March onward they were not in the house. D.W.2s evidence clinches the issue that the death must have taken place only after 16th and before 18th March. It is in this situation the High Court surmised on mere suspicion that A1 and A2 conspired and also committed the murder on 11-3-1982 itself. If the murder has been committed on 11th March itself the body would have been highly decomposed by 18th March 1982 and would have been emitting very bad smell. One cannot imagine that the other remaining inmates of the house would have simply and silently suffered in the house without informing anybody. On the other hand D.W.2s evidence is different and she categorically stated that the deceased was alive upto 16th March. That appears to be natural and there is no reason whatsoever to doubt the same.

       As indicated supra we are inclined to agree with the Sessions Court that the medical evidence does not establish the death to be one of homicidal. At any rate there is a grave doubt in this regard. The evidence on record clearly shows that the deceased was not mentally sound. The fact that she was not coming out of the room and used the same for answering the calls of nature also would show that there was something abnormal about her and she confined her movements to the four corners of the room. 15th March 1982 was the last day when D.W.2 served food to the deceased. Thereafter she did not go inside the room and on 18th March 1982 the dead body was discovered. The evidence ofP.W.2, the Doctor, also shows that no brain injury could be traced and he also did not find any injury on the bones of wind pipe. In view of these and other admissions the trial court rightly felt that there was a reasonable doubt about the cause of death also and accordingly acquitted the accused. (Para 12)

       (ii) Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 202 - Unnatural death - Deceased was daughter inlaw of A1-A1 intentionally omitted to give the information in respect of the death of the de ceased which he was legally bound to give Circumstances clearly go to show that he had knowledge that the deceased died of an unnatural death. It was his bounden duty particularly as head of the family to inform the authorities. He clearly committed the offence punishable u/s. 202 of the Code. (Para 15)