Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 801 (MP)

Veeran v. State of M. P.

2007-07-26

A.K.MISHRA, K.S.CHAUHAN

body2007
JUDGMENT Mishra, J. -- 1. This appeal has been preferred by the accused appellant aggrieved by conviction under section 302 of IPC and sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for life imposed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in ST No. 405/94. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated is that on 11.9.1993 accused Veeran administered sulphas poison after beating his wife Rekha Bai, due to that her condition became serious, she started vomiting, she was taken to Victoria Hospital, Jabalpur, she died on 12.9.1993 next day of incident. Intimation was given by the compounder of the hospital as to suspicious death of Rekha Bai. A marg was registered under section 174 CrPC. Investigation was made on investigation it was found that accused administered sulphas poison to his wife Rekha Bai, post mortem was performed in the post mortem report it was opined that death may be caused due to administration of poison, intestinal fluid and viscera of the deceased was sent for chemical examination, however report of Forensic Science Laboratory in that regard was not filed by the prosecution. The accused was charge sheeted, a charge under section 302 of IPC was framed against him by the trial Court. 3. The accused abjured the guilt and contended that he was innocent. Prosecution in all examined 12 witnesses. The trial Court has based the conviction on the finding that it was possible that accused must have administered sulphas poison to the deceased, consequently he had been convicted under section 302 of IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. 4. Shri Alok Tapikar, learned counsel appearing for appellant has submitted that there is absolutely no evidence indicating that it was a case of homicidal death. He has submitted that there is no evidence on record to indicate that it was the accused who administered sulphas poison to deceased Rekha Bai. Cause of death due to consuming of sulphas poison itself has not been established. Report of Forensic Science Laboratory of chemical examination of viscera has not been produced. Other evidence on record is in conflict with the prosecution case which indicate that accused throttled the neck of the deceased Rekha Bai, however, that had not been found to be the cause of death in the post mortem report. There being no cogent evidence on record the appellant ought to have been acquitted. - 5. Other evidence on record is in conflict with the prosecution case which indicate that accused throttled the neck of the deceased Rekha Bai, however, that had not been found to be the cause of death in the post mortem report. There being no cogent evidence on record the appellant ought to have been acquitted. - 5. Shri R.S. Patel, Additional Advocate General appearing for State has submitted that in view of the statements of Vijju @ Vijay Kumar (PW 9), Narayan Prasad (PW 7) and Gendalal (PW 8), conviction in proper. It is apparent that deceased had been administered the poison by the accused and he ran away from the house, that also points towards his guilt, hence no case for interference in this appeal is made out. 6. When we consider evidence as to cause of death the evidence is entirely shaky. In the post mortem report (Ex. P-16) it is clear that cause of death could not be ascertained, viscera was preserved for chemical analysis. In the circumstances so as to prove that sulphas poison was administered, it was necessary to produce a report of viscera and intestinal fluid that was sent for chemical examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory. When we consider statement of Dr. M.M. Agrawal (PW 11) he has stated that he was posted as Asst. Surgeon on 11.9.1993, Rekha Bai had been examined by him, -it was informed by Lakkhu Bai that Rekha had consumed something in the noon. He found that .deceased Rekha Bai was unconscious, her pulse was low, blood pressure was 70/50, smell was coming out from her nose, her condition was serious, she was admitted in Ward No. 1 for the purpose of treatment, further detailed opinion could be given by a treating Physician, thus from the statement of Dr. M.M. Agrawal it cannot be inferred that death was due to administration of. sulphas poison. Dr. Anoop Jain (PW 12), Chief Medical Officer, Medical College, Jabalpur had performed autopsy, he has stated that death was within 24 hours, cause of death was not clear, viscera was preserved. Thus in our opinion from the aforesaid evidence it has not been established that sulphas poison or any other kind of poison was administered and that was the cause of death. 7. Thus in our opinion from the aforesaid evidence it has not been established that sulphas poison or any other kind of poison was administered and that was the cause of death. 7. Coming to the question whether there is any evidence indicating that sulphas or any other kind of poison was in fact administered by the accused appellant. We find on record that there is no evidence to indicate that it was the accused who administered any kind of poison to deceased Rekha Bai. Sukko Bai (PW 6) mother of deceased Rekha Bai has stated that she had been informed that her daughter was burnt by the accused, she saw dead body of the deceased but that had not been even the case set up by prosecution that deceased had suffered bum injuries. She has stated that accused used to harass the deceased. Narayan Prasad (PW 7), statement was based on hearsay, he has stated that Vijju had informed him about the incident, Vijju was searching Veeran, he was also informed by Pyarelal that accused Veeran had administered two tablets of sulphas poison to the deceased. Vijju (PW 9) version was also of hearsay he has also stated that he came to know while he was sitting in the house of a Panch that deceased was voming. He too stated that he was informed by the son of Veer an and others that Veeran had administered some medicine to the deceased, thus statements of Bijju @ Vijay Kumar and Narayan Prasad (PW 7) were based on hearsay. Statement of Rajkumar (PW 10) son of Veer an assumes significance in the circumstances of the case. His statement under section 164, CrPC was recorded, he was declared hostile by the prosecution as he has not supported his earlier version to the effect that Veeran throttled the neck of deceased Rekha Bai and thereafter ran away. Even if statement of Rajkumar recorded under section 164 CrPC is considered it was not the case that death found by prosecution that death of Rekha Bai was due to throttling of neck, Rekha Bai was admitted in Victoria Hospital and died next day. Rajkumar (PW 10) has not stated that accused appellant had administered sulphas poison to the deceased. 8. Rajkumar (PW 10) has not stated that accused appellant had administered sulphas poison to the deceased. 8. In our opinion the finding recorded by the trial Court that sulphas poison may have been administered by the accused appellant is clearly impermissible finding not supported by evidence on record. The finding is totally perverse. It is settled law that guilt of accused has to be proved beyond periphery of reasonable doubt. In the instant case it has not been proved that any kind of tablet or poison was in fact administered. In the medical evidence and post mortem report also no opinion as to cause of death was given, chemical examination report of viscera was not produced by the prosecution, thus we find that prosecution has utterly failed to prove their case by adducing cogent evidence as against the appellant. No other evidence could be pointed out by Shri R.S. Patel, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of State. Prosecution has come up with the case that poison was administered, thereafter, tried to adduce the evidence as to throttling of neck and setting ablaze by the fire, but that has not been substantiated by medical evidence. 9. We appreciate the services rendered by Shri Alok Tapikar, learned counsel who appeared on behalf of Legal Service Committee of this Court for rendering valuable. assistance to this Court. 10. Resultantly, we allow the appeal. Appellant is acquitted of the offence under section 302 of IPC. Conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court are hereby set aside. He be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.