K. T.Thomas, J.: Death of an Army man s young wife was depicted as a case of murder and the Army man was sent up for trial. Sessions Court found it a murder and him the murderer. Consequently Jeet Singh, the respondent was convicted of uxcorcide and was sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302 of IPC. But a Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh held it to be a case of suicide and exonerated him of the charges. This appeal is by the State of Himachal Pradesh by special leave.

2. Sudarshana Devi, wife of accused Jeet Singh, was a young fair and fashionable lass, but "Leucoderma" in its nascent stage had erupted small white patches on her bosom. This became the cause of dislike for her husband towards her as he mistook it to be a kind of leprosy. Though their marriage was solemnized her as he mistook it to be a kind of leprosy. Though their marriage was solemnized more than three years before her death Jeet Singh was spending most of his days in the Army field except for short intervals when he used to go home availing himself of the annual leave. So Sudarshana Devi had to remain in her nuptial home mostly without her husband nearby, but putting up with the unsavory epithets intermittently hurled by her mother-in-law and young sister-in-law at her.

3. Jeet Singh went home in April 1987 for his annual leave. He and his wife Sudarshana Devi left together in his family house at Lahar village (Hamirpur District), Himachal Pradesh. On the fateful night the couple went to bed in the "Overy" (which is said to be a bedroom of the house) but on the next morning Sudarshana Devi was found dead. The shocking news was conveyed to her father who rushed to the house and saw the dead body of his daughter. As he entertained doubts about some foul play he decided to report the matter to the police. He did it telephonically and the police arrived at the scene promptly. They held the inquest on the dead. Body and sent it for post mortem examination. Three doctors of the local district hospital conducted a joint post-mortem examination and it was then revealed that death of Sudarashana Devi was by smothering.

4. Prosecution version is that accused administered some kind of insecticide to the deceased either deceitfully or forcefully and smothered her.

5. Accused Jset Singh was arrested on 21.4.1987. On the strength of his disclosures PW-24 Kashmir Singh (Sub Inspector of Police, Nandaun) recovered a bottle containing green insecticide, a towel, a vest, Kauli, and steel glass and some ground "misri."

6. The trial judge counted a number of circumstances which were adverse to the accused, such as the strained relationship between the spouses, medical evidence suggesting administration of poison, and smothering of the^ deceased, recovery of incriminating articles under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the fact that accused and deceased were in the same room on the fateful night and that she was found dead on the early morning and the subsequent conduct of the accused. The Sessions Judge reached the conclusion from the aforesaid circumstances that Sudarshana Devi was murdered by the accused. Accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.

7. The Division Bench of the High Court drastically varied from the aforesaid conclusion. Even on the circumstances the Division Bench differed from the trial court. In the end of High Court held like mis: "In light of the evidence that has come on record of this case, it may be said that the deceased died of poison but it is difficult to conclude that the death was homicidal. As a matter of fact, it appears that it is a case of suicide for which the accused cannot be held to be responsible."

8. Shri Anil Soni, learned counsel for the State of Himachal Pradesh, while criticizing the aforesaid conclusion of the High Court submitted that learned judges have grossly erred in holding that it is a case of suicide. The counsel made a forceful plea that on the medical evidence no court could