Supreme Court
Honble R.C. LAHOTI & BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.
Jaipal - Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.705 of 2001
Decided On : October 01, 2002
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. (Para 34)
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. `I he accused- appellant is acquitted. (Para 35)
(2). Prakash Devi died an unnatural death on 7.8.1997 at about 4.50 p.m. About 15 years before his death she was married with the accused; The couple lived happily and peacefully for about 34 years. In 1986 they developed some differences leading to bickerings and strained relationship in marriage. The appellant was serving as a school teacher. It is alleged that he needed some money to construct a house and Sheotaj, PW4 the father of Prakash Devi employed as Sub-Inspector of Police, had obliged the son-in law by giving a sum of Rs.50,000/- of his own and another sum of Rs.30,000/- through his son. This obligation too failed to restore matrimonial harmony in the couple. The wife initiated proceedings for recovery of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. while the husband filed a suit seeking dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce. On 14.3.1997 the husband, i.e., the accused- appellant lost in his suit. He preferred an appeal in the High Court. On 16.7.1997 the matter was compromised with the intervention of elders of the village. As per settlement the wife was to join the husband which she failed to do.
(3). The prosecution further alleges that some 3 or 4 days prior to the death of Prakash Devi her brother Virender Singh had come to Narnaul where the accused met him and directed him to send Prakash Devi to join with him.
(4). On 7.8.1997 Smt. Beena, wife of Virender Singh (PW-3), accompanied by Prakash Devi, reached the house of the accused situated in a locality known as `Housing Board Nasibpur at about 12.00 or 12.30 p.m. The accused was present in the house. Smt. Beena was asked by the accused to sit in the outer room telling her that he wanted to speak to Prakash Devi in privacy. Prakash Devi was taken by the accused in the inner room of the house. The husband and wife, were in conversation for about half-an-hour when Smt. Beena heard the voice of Prakash Devi complaining of uneasiness. She went inside the inner room. The accused told Prakash Devi that he had some tablet with him which could be given to her to come out of her feeling of uneasiness. Then he gave one tablet to Prakash Devi. After consuming the tablet Prakash Devi felt more uneasy and vomited. Smt. Beena took Prakash Devi to Narnaul on a rickshaw. She vomited once again outside the house. She also said that she might not survive and requested for calling the accused so as to see him. Smt. Beena accompanied by Prakash Kaur reached Navjeevan Hospital at Narnaul. The accused also reached there on a scooter. The accused assured Smt. Beena of taking care of Prakash Devi whereupon Smt. Beena left for her home at Dongra Ahir. Having informed her family members, she once again came to Navjeevan Hospital, Narnaul, accompanied by her brothers-in-law Sardara and Siri Chand. Navjeevan Hospital is run by Dr. Parveen Choudhary a private medical practitioner at whose instance the accused had shifted Prakash Devi to Civil Hospital, Narnaul. In fact, Dr. Parveen Chaudhary did not admit Prakash Devi and as he suspected the case to be one of poisoning referred her straightaway to Civil Hospital. He remembered Prakash Devi having been brought to him between 3 and 4 p.m. on that day. Smt. Beena and her brothers-in-law reached Civil Hospital but only to find Prakash Devi dead.
(5). Rajender Singh, Sub-Inspector of P.S. Narnaul had come to the hospital in connection with investigation of some other offence. There Smt. Beena met him and informed him of the incident which had taken place. Rajender Singh recorded the statement of Smt. Beena at 9.30 p. m. and forwarded the same to P.S. Narnaul whereat, at 9.40 p.m. the statement of Smt. Beena was registered as FIR and the investig
1. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Mahalrashtra (AIR 1984 SC 1622)
2. Bhupinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1988 SC 1011)
3. Anant Chintaman Lagu vs. The State of Bombay (AIR 1960 SC 500)
4. Smt. Phino vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1975 SC 1327)
5. Raghav Prapanna Tripathi & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1963 SC 74)
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.