Back
1999 Supreme(Pat) 463
PATNA HIGH COURT
Nagendra Rai and M.L.Visa JJ.
Most.Ram Dulari Sinha
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 1986 ;
Decided On : MAY 21,1999
In a murder case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased died of poisoning, that the accused was involved in administering the poison, and that there was a motive for the crime. The medical evidence must be reliable and sufficient to establish the cause of death, and the circumstantial evidence must be strong enough to lead to the only possible conclusion that the accused is guilty.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - MURDER - CONVICTION - EVIDENCE - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - SUFFICIENCY - MOTIVE - OPPORTUNITY - POSSESSION OF POISON - DEATH DUE TO POISONING - MEDICAL EVIDENCE - CONTRADICTORY OPINIONS - RELIABILITY - POST-MORTEM EXAMINATION REPORT - PRESERVATION OF VISCERA - OBLIGATION OF DOCTOR - COLLUSION WITH ACCUSED - INFERENCE - VALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted of murder under Section 302/34 and Section 120-B of the IPC for the death of the deceased, Viswanath. The prosecution's case was that the appellant, along with two others, conspired to kill the deceased due to strained relations and a desire to grab his properties. The deceased was allegedly offered poisoned rasgula at his father's house, which led to his death on a train journey. The appellant denied the charges and claimed alibi.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased died of poisoning or that the appellant was involved in administering the poison. The court noted that the medical evidence was contradictory, with one doctor opining that the death was due to natural causes and the other stating that the deceased's physical condition would have prevented him from performing his duties normally. The court also found that there was no evidence to establish that the appellant was present when the deceased was given the rasgula or that she had the poison in her possession. The court concluded that the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for murder.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased died of poisoning? 2. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was involved in administering the poison? 3. Whether the medical evidence was reliable and sufficient to establish the cause of death? 4. Whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for murder?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased died of poisoning. The medical evidence was contradictory, with one doctor opining that the death was due to natural causes and the other stating that the deceased's physical condition would have prevented him from performing his duties normally. The court found that this contradiction raised doubts about the reliability of the post-mortem examination report. 2. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was involved in administering the poison. There was no evidence to establish that the appellant was present when the deceased was given the rasgula or that she had the poison in her possession. The court found that the appellant's mere presence on the same train as the deceased was not sufficient to prove her involvement in the crime. 3. The court held that the medical evidence was contradictory and unreliable. The court noted that the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination did not preserve the viscera, which raised suspicions of collusion with the accused. The court also found that the doctor's opinion that the deceased's physical condition would have prevented him from performing his duties normally was contradicted by the fact that the deceased was regularly performing his duties. 4. The court held that the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for murder. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the essential elements of the crime, namely, the cause of death, the appellant's involvement, and the motive for the crime.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant, and discharged her from the liability of her bail bonds.
M.L.Visa, J.
1. This appeal by sole appellant Ram Dulari Sinha, who along with two others faced trial before the Court below, is directed against the judgment and order dated 6.1.1986 passed by 4th Addl. Sessions Judge, Patna in Sessions Trial No. 1 of 1977 arising out of Barh P.S. Case No. 19 dated 19.7.1972 convicting the appellant under Section 302/34 and Section 120-B of the IPC and sentencing her to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302/34, IPC. No separate sentence has been passed under Section 120-B of the IPC. The case of prosecution, in short, is stated below.
2. Deceased Viswa Kant Sharma @ Viswanath was the son of Dr. Chandrawali Prasad Sinha, who himself died during the course of investigation of this case. The wife of Dr. Chandrawali Prasad Sinha died in the year 1953 leaving behind her husband, the deceased Viswanath, two daughters, namely, Sunaina Sinha (PW 1) and Anjali (not examined). At that time deceased Viswanath was aged about 7-8 years and after the death of his mother, he was not properly looked after by his father, who was living a luxurious life and being dissatisfied with his conduct and behaviour Dwarka Prasad, father of Dr. Chandrawali Prasad Sinha, partitioned his property between his son Dr. Chandrawali Prasad Sinha and his grand son Viswanath half and half in the year, 1954. After the death of his father, Dr. Chandrawali Prasad Sinha started living with appellant Ram Dulari Sinha treating her as his wife and deceased Viswanath came to the house of his elder sister Sunaina at Village-Berhna and started living with her. Appellant Ram Dulari Sinha at that time was young and beautiful and wanted to grab the properties of the deceased allotted to him by his grand father. She also developed close intimacy and clandestine relationship with Raj Dular Singh @ Kaviji and Chandrabanshi Seth. Kaviji was the elder brother of husband of Anjali, the younger daughter of Dr. Chandrawali Prasad Sinha. The deceased did not like Kaviji and Chandrabanshi Seth because of their clandestine relationship with appellant, who got a partition Suit No. 62/69 filed through Jairam Singh in which her two minor sons were plaintiffs and she along with Dr. Chandrawali Prasad Sinha and the deceased were made defendants. The deceased Viswanath contested the suit and he also filed some letters written by co-accused Chandrabanshi Seth to appellant disclosing their illicit relationship. Dr. Chandrawali Prasad Sinha also filed a false case of cycle theft against deceased Viswanath which after investigation was found false and police recommended prosecution against Dr. Chandrawali Prasad Sinha under Section 211 of the IPC.
3. The deceased Viswanath few months prior to 30.6.1972 which is the date of occurrence in this case, got employment in B.M.P. VI at Muzaffarpur and on 29.6.1972 (Saturday), he applied for leave for 1.7.1972 but it was not allowed and he then after attending his duty on 29.6.1972 came to the house of Sunaina (PW 1) at village Berhna where the deceased stayed in the night. On 30.6.1972 at 3.00 p.m. Kaviji came to the house of Sunaina and took the deceased with him to the residence of Dr. Chandrawali Prasad Sinha on the pretext for talks with his father for amicable settlement of the dispute concerning the title suit. Rajiv (since dead), son of Sunaina (PW 1) also accompanied the deceased to the residence of his father at Barh. The deceased was offered rasgula (a sweetmeat) by his father Dr. Chandrawali Prasad Sinha and from there at about 7.00 p.m., he went to Barh Station and boarded Danapur-Samastipur Express train for going back to Muzaffarpur for joining his duty on 1.7.1972. At that time, the appellant along with Dr. Chandrawali Prasad Sinha and Kaviji also came to Barh Railway Station and appellant and Kaviji boarded the same train but in different compartment next to that which the deceased Viswanath entered but Dr. Chandrawali Prasad Sinha remained at the Railway Station. In the compartment in
