Back
2011 Supreme(Jhk) 564
[2012 (l) East Cr C 432 (Jhr)]
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
R.K.MERATHIA & MRS JAYA ROY, JJ.
Braj Dulal Mandal & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr.A.(DB) No. 99 of 2001,
Decided on : June 29, 2011
Yogesh Modi, amicus curiae, for the appellant.
A.B. Mahata, APP. for the respondent.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for concrete evidence and the application of the 'benefit of doubt' principle in criminal cases.
Headnote:
POISONING - Criminal Law - The court found that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the appellants mixed poison in the chicken, and the suspicion alone was not enough to convict the appellants. The court also highlighted the lack of examination of key witnesses and the absence of a viscera report, leading to the benefit of doubt being given to the appellant No.2-Lateka Mandal.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted under Section 302/34 of IPC and Section 328/34 of IPC for allegedly mixing poison in chicken, resulting in the death of two individuals. The prosecution alleged that the poisoning was motivated by property disputes and enmity between the parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the appellants mixed poison in the chicken, and the suspicion alone was not enough to convict the appellants. The lack of examination of key witnesses and the absence of a viscera report led to the benefit of doubt being given to the appellant No.2-Lateka Mandal.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the presence of poison in the chicken, the motive behind the alleged poisoning, and the sufficiency of evidence to convict the appellants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of concrete evidence in criminal cases and highlighted the need for thorough examination of key witnesses and the absence of a viscera report. The principle of 'benefit of doubt' was applied in favor of the appellant No.2-Lateka Mandal.
Final Decision: The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence was set aside, and the appellant No.2-Lateka Mandal was directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other criminal case. The appeal was allowed.
R.K. Merathia & Jaya Roy, JJ.-This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction dated 20.1.2001 and sentence dated 22.1.2001 passed in Sessions Trial No.201 of 1997/44 of 1997 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pakur convicting the appellants under Section 302/34 of IPC, and sentencing them to go R.I. for life and also under Section 328/34 of IPC, and sentencing them to go R.I. for five years. Though, the sentences were to run concurrently.
2. The prosecution case in short is that the appellant No.1- Braj Dulal Mandal and Nilambar Mandal (deceased) were 'Sarhus' and appellant No.2-Lateka Mandal and wife of Nilambar Mandal are sisters. The brother of Lateka Mandal gave one house to both her sisters and brothers-in-law to live jointly. There used to be some disputes between them on the portion of the areas given to them. On 12.1.1992 there was a quarrel between the sisters on which the appellants threatened with dire consequences to the informant party. The matter was pacified by intervention of the villagers. On the next date i.e. 13.1.1992, the informant party took lunch which included cooked chicken. The left over chicken was kept for consuming in dinner. At the dinner time, it was felt that there was smell like kerosene in the chicken. However, Nilambar Mandal (deceased), his 12 years old son Bhaskar and his wife Anjali Mandal took chicken. Thereafter, Bhaskar became unconsious. Nilambar rushed to the neighborhood, but he also became unconscious and started vomiting. In the meantime, Anjali also became unconscious. All of them were taken to hospital where Bhaskar was declared dead and during course of treatment Nilambar also died. Suspicion was raised against the appellants and Satranjan Mandal (father of Braj Dulal Mandal) that due to property disputes, taking advantage of absence of the informant party from their house, they might have mixed poison in the chicken for killing the whole family. It was also alleged that the appellants fled away after locking their houses. The left over chicken was handed over to the police in a can.
3. The accused persons were put on trial. Satranjan Mandal was acquitted and the appellants were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.
4. Mr. Yogesh Modi, learned panel counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants referring to the order dated 24th June, 2011 submitted that appellant No.1-Braj Dulal Mandal has died during pendency of this appeal, and therefore, he is not pressing it on his behalf. Accordingly, this appeal on behalf of appellant No.1 stands abated.
5. On behalf of appellant No.2-Lateka Mandal he submitted that there is nothing to prove that the appellants mixed poison in the chicken except the suspicion. He also submitted that she has remained in jail for a total period of about more than ten years.
6. On the other hand, Mr. A.B.Mahata, learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment.
7. We find force in the submissions of Mr 'Modi. Chicken was cooked on 13.1.1992. It was consumed at the time of lunch and then the left-over was consumed by the two deceased and Anjali in the night. It is not understood why it was consumed even when bad smell was coming, as alleged. Bhaskar died on 13.1.1992. Nilambar died on 14.1.1992. Post-mortem was held on 14.1.1992. Then the fardbeyan along with a purported sample of the cooked chicken was handed over to the police by the informant party. In the circumstances, it cannot be safely presumed that the appellants mixed poison in the chicken which remained in custody of the informant party for two days. The doctor could not ascertain the cause of death and he reserved his opinion till the receipt of viscera report, but no viscera report has been received. Though Exhibit 2, the chemical report shows that Endosulfan was detected in the contents of aluminium container marked 'A' containing some brownish decomposed substance which is a chloroorganic pesticide and which is commonly used in agriculture for killing pests and is poison
