1. Murder charge under Section 302, IPC — Administration of poison to a patient — Death in hospital — Misappropriation of property and concealment of death. (Para 1 , 2 , 11 , 30 )
Back
Next 
1959 Supreme(SC) 220
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
14th December, 1959
S.K. DAS, A.K. SARKAR AND M. HIDAYATULLAH, JJ.
Anant Chintaman Lagu, Appellant
Versus
The State of Bombay, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 73 of 1959.
Advocates appeared
Mr. A. S. R. Chari, Senior Advocate (M/s S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji and Rameshwar Nath, Advocates of M/s. Rajinder Narain and Co. with him), for Appellant ; Mr. H. M. Seervai, Advocate General for State of Bombay (M/s. Porus A. Mehta and R. H. Dhebar, Advocates with him), for Respondent.
Advocates:
A.S.R.CHARI, H.M.SIRVAI, J.B.DADACHAN, PORUS A.MEHTA, R.H.Dhebar, RAJINDAR NARAIN, RAMESHWAR NATH ROY, S.N.ANDLEY
A.S.R.CHARI, H.M.SIRVAI, J.B.DADACHAN, PORUS A.MEHTA, R.H.Dhebar, RAJINDAR NARAIN, RAMESHWAR NATH ROY, S.N.ANDLEY
Conviction for murder by poisoning can be sustained on circumstantial evidence even if no poison is detected during autopsy, provided the evidence is so cogent and compelling that it excludes every other reasonable hypothesis and the conduct of the accused unerringly points to guilt.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Section 302 - Murder by poisoning - Proof of corpus delicti - Conviction based on circumstantial evidence - It is not an invariable rule that poison must be detected in the viscera to sustain a conviction for murder by poisoning; if the circumstantial evidence is so decisive that the court can unhesitatingly hold that death resulted from the administration of poison and that the poison was administered by the accused, the conviction can be rested on it. (Paras 58, 59, 68)
(B) Conduct of the accused - Incriminatory conduct which has no reasonable explanation except on the hypothesis of guilt can be considered material to destroy the presumption of innocence. (Para 15)
(C) Circumstantial evidence - In cases of murder by poisoning, where the crime is committed in secrecy, the combination of facts creating a net-work through which there is no escape for the accused can lead to a conviction even in the absence of direct proof of the three traditional elements: that death took place by poisoning, that the accused had the poison in his possession, and that the accused had an opportunity to administer it. (Paras 59, 68)
Facts of the case:
An elderly woman died shortly after being admitted to a hospital by her family physician after becoming unconscious during a train journey. The physician provided a false identity, misleading medical history, and attempted to prevent a post-mortem examination. Following the death, the physician misappropriated the deceased's assets through forgery and impersonation and deceived relatives by claiming the deceased was still alive and had moved to another location.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the medical evidence ruled out natural causes, such as diabetic coma. The combination of the accused's conduct—including the removal of valuables, the use of a fake name, the attempt to thwart the autopsy, and the subsequent systematic fraud—established a chain of circumstances that unerringly pointed to the administration of an undetectable poison.
Issues: Whether a conviction for murder by poisoning can be sustained based on circumstantial evidence when no poison is detected during the autopsy and whether the conduct of the accused is sufficient to establish guilt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that corpus delicti can be proved by circumstantial evidence even without the detection of poison, provided the evidence is so cogent and compelling that no other rational hypothesis than murder can account for the facts. The accused's conduct, when intrinsically linked to the death and lacking reasonable explanation, is decisive in establishing guilt.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Prosecution alleged murder by undetectable poison; defense contended death resulted from natural causes, specifically diabetic coma or hypoglycemia, and subsequent conduct did not prove murder. (Para 14 , 69 , 141 )
3. Conviction based on circumstantial evidence — Medical evidence ruling out diabetic coma — Incriminatory conduct including concealment of death, forgery, and stripping of valuables. (Para 15 , 42 , 46 , 54 , 55 )
4. Conviction for murder by poisoning can be based on circumstantial evidence even if poison is not detected, provided the evidence excludes every other reasonable hypothesis. (Para 59 , 68 )
5. Appeal dismissed — Conviction under Section 302, IPC maintained — Death sentence confirmed. (Para 77 , 78 , 146 )
6. Can a conviction for murder by poisoning be sustained if no poison is detected during autopsy or chemical analysis?
Yes, if circumstantial evidence is so decisive that it leads to the sole conclusion that death resulted from poison administered by the accused, excluding all other reasonable hypotheses. (Para 59 , 60 , 68 )
7. Is the physical discovery of a body or a specific cause of death mandatory to prove corpus delicti in murder trials?
No, the fact of death and the commission of the crime can be proved by circumstantial evidence that renders the crime certain, even without a body or direct evidence of the cause of death. (Para 60 , 62 , 64 )
8. How does the subsequent conduct of an accused influence a conviction based on circumstantial evidence?
Conduct that has no reasonable explanation other than the hypothesis of guilt, such as concealing death or misappropriating property, can be incriminatory and destroy the presumption of innocence. (Para 15 , 31 , 74 )
9. How should courts treat negative findings from chemical analysis in suspected poisoning cases?
Negative findings are not decisive because some poisons are undetectable, may be eliminated before death, or may decompose, making other probative circumstances critical for an irresistible inference of guilt. (Para 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 )
Judgment
HIDAYATULLAH, J. : This appeal by special leave is against the judgment of the Bombay High Court (J. C. Shah, J. (now of the SC) and V. S. Desai, J.) by which it maintained the conviction of the appellant, Lagu, under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and confirmed the sentence of death passed on him by Shri V. A. Naik (now Naik, J.) Sessions Judge, Poona.
2. The appellant was tried for the murder of one Laxmibai Karve, and the charge held proved against him was that on or about the night between November 12 and 13, 1956, either at Poona or in the course of a railway journey between Poona and Bombay, he administered to the said Laxmibai Karve, some unrecognised poison or drug which would act as a poison, with the intention of causing her death and which did cause her death.
3. Laxmibai Karve was a resident of Poona where she lived at 93-95, Shudrawar Peth. Before her marriage she was known as Indumati, Indutai or Indu Ponkshe. In the year 1922, she married Anant Ramachandra Karve, a widower with a son by name, Vishnu. On her marriage, as is the custom, she was named Laxmibai by the family of her husband and was known as Laxmibai Karve. She was also known as Mai or Mai Karve. From Laxmibai there were born two sons, Ramachandra (P. W. 1) and Purshottam alias Arvind, who died in 1954.
4. Anant Ramachandra Karve was a moderately rich man, who had been successful in business. He died in 1945 of pleurisy. He was attended till his death by the appellant and his brother, B. C. Lagu, both of whom are doctors. Anant Ramachandra Karve left a will dated February 28, 1944. Prior to the execution of the will, he had gifted Rs. 30,000 to his son, Vishnu, to set him up in business. By his will he gave the house No. 93-95, Shukrawar Peth, Poona to Ramachandra with a right of residence in at least three rooms to his widow, Laxmibai and a further right to her to receive Rs. 50 per month from the rent of the house. He assigned an insurance policy of Rs. 5,000 in her favour. The business was left to Ramachandra. The cash deposits in Bank, Post Office and with other persons together with the right to recover loans from debtors in the Bhor State were given to Purushottam alias Arvind. Certain bequests of lands and debentures were made to Vishnu s children. Laxmibai was also declared owner of all her ornaments of about 60 tolas of gold and nose ring and pearl bangles which were described in the will.
5. In addition to what she inherited from her husband, Laxmibai inherited about Rs. 25,000 invested in shares from her mother, Girjabai, and another 60 tolas of gold ornaments. In January 1954, Purshottam alias Arvind died at Poona. By Purshottam s death Laxmibai also inherited all the property held by him.
6. Thus, at the time of her death, Laxmibai was possessed of about 560 shares in diverse Electric Companies, debentures in South Madras Electric Supply Corporation and Mettur Chemical and Industrial Corporation, a sum of Rs. 7,882-15-0 at the Bank of Maharashtra, a sum of Rs. 35,000 in deposit with one Vasudeo Sadashiv Joshi, gold and pearl ornaments and sundry movables like clothes, household furniture, radio etc.
7. In the year 1946, Ramachandra, the elder son started living separately. There were differences between the mother and son. The latter had suffered a loss in the business and had mortgaged the house with one Shinde, who filed a suit, and obtained a decree but Vishnu filed a suit for partition claiming that his one-third share was not affected. Before this, Ramachandra had closed his business in 1951 and joined the military. He was posted at different places, but in spite of their differences, mother and son used to correspond with each other. In May, 1956, Laxmibai arranged and performed his marriage, and he went away in June, 1956.
8. Laxmibai had contracted tuberculosis after birth of Purshottam. That was about twenty years before her death. The lesion, however, healed and till 1946 her health was not bad. From 1946 she suffered from d
