Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1455 (BOM)

Ashok s/o Govinda Borse v. State of Maharashtra

2008-10-07

P.R.BORKAR, P.V.HARDAS

body2008
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per P.R.Borkar, J.) 1. This appeal is preferred by the original accused being aggrieved by the Judgment and order passed by learned IInd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in Sessions Case No.82 of 2005, decided on 24.3.2006 whereby he was convicted of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. He is also convicted of offence punishable under Section 33 of the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. 2. The facts giving rise to the prosecution may be stated as below : Deceased Leelabai was wife of present appellant. Leelabai married appellant Ashok in 1989. Leelabai gave birth to two children - Chandrakant and PW-4 Kalpesh. It is not disputed that appellant Ashok was educated upto XIIth Standard at the time of marriage and after marriage, he completed some course of medicine and thereafter started practising medicine. It is stated that the appellant was harassing Leelabai for getting money from her parents for purchasing a motorcycle. Appellant was also addicted to liquor. He used to bring other women to his house. He used to say that he did not like Leelabai and Leelabai was not befitting wife of a Doctor like him. Leelabai was beaten. Leelabai used to complain about the ill-treatment at the hands of her husband Ashok to her father Dattu (P.W.1). Leelabai was seriously ill, but the appellant himself used to treat Leelabai without taking her for treatment to any other doctor. 3. On 4.2.2005, Leelabai was suffering from vomiting and loose motions. At about 2.00 to 3.00 p.m., appellant informed PW-1 Dattu that Leelabai was serious and he should come to see her. One Bhagwan - PW-2 also informed about Leelabai was being serious and PW-1 Dattu was asked to come to the hospital of Dr.Rajiv Narkhede (PW-10) at Jalgaon and thereafter, PW-1 Dattu alongwith his wife and son Khushal (PW-5) went to Jalgaon. At that time, Leelabai was unconscious. One Bhagwan - PW-2 also informed about Leelabai was being serious and PW-1 Dattu was asked to come to the hospital of Dr.Rajiv Narkhede (PW-10) at Jalgaon and thereafter, PW-1 Dattu alongwith his wife and son Khushal (PW-5) went to Jalgaon. At that time, Leelabai was unconscious. There was smell of insecticide and, therefore, enquiries were made with Chandrakant, the son of appellant and he said that Leelabai had been ill for 3 - 4 days and his father had administered her some medicine, which was having foul smell and thereafter froth came out of Leelabai’s mouth, which he had wiped. He also said that Leelabai was given some injection through saline. Leelabai died at 2.20 a.m. on 5.2.2005. Thereafter, the dead body was subjected to post mortem and then funeral was performed. PW-1 Dattu lodged complaint on 7.2.2005, which was registered at about 00:30 Hrs. It is alleged that as Ashok, the husband of his daughter - Leelabai did not get money from him for purchasing motorcycle and since the appellant was not also liking Leelabai, she was killed by the appellant by administering poison. 4. The prosecution wants to rely on the evidence of relatives PW-1 Dattu (father), PW-5 Khushal (brother), PW-4 Kalpesh (Son) of deceased Leelabai and neighbours PW-2 Bhagwan, PW-3 Rekhabai and PW-6 Pravin. There is evidence of PW-10 Dr.Rajiv Narkhede who had treated Leelabai. He has stated that Leelabai was poisoned. Dr.Jayant Katikar is the Member - Secretary of Pachora Taluka Committee established for taking action against bogus doctors. He is examined at Exh.72. He was instrumental in bringing to notice of prosecution that appellant was a non-registered medical practitioner and had no authority to practise medicine and as such the charge under Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961 came to be framed against the appellant. Dr.Dipti Payghan (PW-9) had performed post mortem on the dead body of Leelabai and she came to a conclusion that death was due to Organo Phosphorous poison having brand name "Rogor". The prosecution also wants to rely on discovery of bottle of poison and syringe which were found in a Well adjacent to the house where appellant was residing with Leelabai. These articles were discovered on the information given by the appellant. The prosecution also wants to rely on discovery of bottle of poison and syringe which were found in a Well adjacent to the house where appellant was residing with Leelabai. These articles were discovered on the information given by the appellant. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also relied upon the statement of PW-4 Kalpesh that he had seen his father - appellant administering some white liquid to his mother Leelabai. 5. Mrs.Jadhav, appearing for appellant mainly attacked the Judgment and Order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, so far as conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned. According to her, the discovery was nothing but plantation. If Kalpesh had disclosed regarding administration of poison by appellant to Leelabai, such fact would have appeared in the complaint. She also stated that PW-4 - Kalpesh is a child witness. His evidence is not reliable. In case such information had been given, complaint would have been lodged on 5.2.2005 itself instead of at 00:30 Hrs. on 7.2.2005. The complaint is dated 6.2.2005 and is lodged and registered at midnight between 6th and 7th February 2005. 6. Shri Patil, learned A.P.P. supported the Judgment. According to him, the evidence of PW-4 Kalpesh is natural. The complaint itself discloses that when enquiries were made to Chandrakant and Kalpesh, Chandrakant disclosed about administration of poison by the appellant to Leelabai. Moreover, the discovery is also natural, probable and deserves to be believed. It is supported by both panchas i.e. PW-8 Yuvraj Choudhari and A.P.I. Raju Shirsath (PW-11). 7. So far as motive is concerned, PW-1 Dattu Mahajan has stated in the statement recorded at Exh.13 that when the appellant married Leelabai, the appellant was running a small grocery shop. The appellant and original accused No.3 started ill-treating Leelabai and were demanding money for medical education of the appellant. He paid Rs.20,000/- for medical course, which the appellant completed in three years and thereafter he practised medicine at 5-6 villages around Dahiwad. While practising, appellant started consuming liquor and used to bring other women to his house. He used to insult Leelabai saying that he did not like her. She was not suitable to be wife of a doctor like him. His daughter has disclosed this to him. Two sons were born to Leelabai from the appellant. While practising, appellant started consuming liquor and used to bring other women to his house. He used to insult Leelabai saying that he did not like her. She was not suitable to be wife of a doctor like him. His daughter has disclosed this to him. Two sons were born to Leelabai from the appellant. Chandrakant was 11 years of age and younger son - Kalpesh was 9 years of age at the time of incident. Leelabai was not keeping well and appellant used to treat her. So, evidence of Dattu is mainly on the point that appellant was not liking Leelabai and was not considering her suitable spouse. He was considering her as not befitting him. 8. PW-4 Khushal has supported his father’s evidence that at the time of marriage, appellant was running a grocery shop. With the help of Rs.20,000/- provided by his father, the appellant completed some medical course and started practising at Dahiwad and thereafter appellant demanded Rs.10,000/- which was paid. He also wanted to purchase a motorcycle and demanded more money. He practised medicine for about one and half years at Dahiwad. Thereafter he got addicted to liquor. He used to say Leelabai that he is a man of reputation and she was not suitable match for him and her lips were too thick. On 4.2.2005, when he was in the school, he got message and he came to hospital at Jalgaon where he met Dr.Narkhede. On enquiry, Dr.Narkhede informed him that there was poison in the stomach of Leelabai. He also stated that Kalpesh told him on enquiries that his father had given one injection to Leelabai and medicine was white in colour. Kalpesh also stated that appellant poured medicine in the mouth of his mother - Leelabai. In cross-examination of PW-4 Khushal, it was brought on record that since first delivery, Leelabai was suffering from convulsions and for the same, she was admitted in the hospital of Dr.Deore at Chalisgaon. Omission was also brought on record that when Leelabai and the appellant resided at Dahiwad, appellant was saying that she was not suitable match to him as he had become a doctor and as her lips were too thick. 9. PW-4 Kalpesh is examined at Exh.16. He is a child witness of nine years of age. He stated that his father was practising medicine at village Kalamsare. 9. PW-4 Kalpesh is examined at Exh.16. He is a child witness of nine years of age. He stated that his father was practising medicine at village Kalamsare. His mother was having loose motions and vomiting. His father was treating her. At about 11.00 O’ clock, he went to school and came back at about 1.30 p.m. for a lunch. At that time, his mother was sleeping on the table for patient. One Girjabai came home for cleaning clothes of his mother, which were soiled due to vomitings. Girjabai washed the clothes. When he was present at the house, his father took out a large syringe. Then sucked some white medicine from some container and connected the syringe to the tube of saline and also poured medicine in the mouth of his mother. Thereafter, his father threw syringe, tube of saline and said tin into the Well which was behind their house. It is argued that if this information was given by Kalpesh to his maternal uncle Khushal or grandfather Dattu, in that case there would not be any discovery. If we refer to complaint (Exh.14) lodged by PW-1 Dattu, it discloses that enquiries were made with Chandrakant and Kalpesh and it was Chandrakant who said that his father had administered some white medicine with foul smell to his mother. So, it is not stated in the complaint that it was Kalpesh who had given any information regarding the incident, particularly throwing of syringe and container of the medicine into the Well. 10. It has come in evidence that statements of PW-4 Kalpesh and PW-5 Khushal were recorded by Police on 12th February 2005, about six days after the incident and not immediately after the incident. This raises question whether the statement of PW-4 Kalpesh regarding (he) having seen his father administering poison and then throwing the container and syringe into the Well was really true statement or his evidence is a tutored one. So far as child witness is concerned, it is necessary to take precaution while accepting its evidence, particularly since child witnesses are always susceptible to tutoring and can even imagine an incident which they had not witnessed. 11. Omission was brought in the cross-examination that Kalpesh has not stated before Police that at 13.00 noon, his father took a large syringe, filled it with white coloured medicine from one container. 11. Omission was brought in the cross-examination that Kalpesh has not stated before Police that at 13.00 noon, his father took a large syringe, filled it with white coloured medicine from one container. There is no explanation regarding this material omission. Similarly, omission was brought on record that this witness has not stated before the Police that his father had thrown the syringe, tin container and tube into the Well after putting medicine in the mouth of his mother. Omission was also brought on record that on 4th February 2005, when he returned at 1.30 p.m. from the school, he saw his mother lying on the patient’s table and his father took out the medicine which was white in colour and poured it in the mouth of his mother and his father threw the saline tube, container and syringe into nearby Well. In this view, in our opinion, the evidence of PW-4 Kalpesh cannot be believed. It is more or less a tutored evidence. 12. Evidence of witness - Kalpesh is, however, relevant so far as condition of house of the appellant is concerned. The house of appellant, as per evidence of Kalpesh consists of only one room. Same room was used for residence and as a dispensary. PW-6 Pravin is neighbour of deceased Leelabai. He stated at Exh.22 that the appellant was having dispensary in the house of Motiram Choudhari, wherein he was residing as a tenant and it was was one room tenement. The said room was divided by a partition of a curtain and the appellant was having dispensary and residence in the same room. 13. PW-2 Bhagwan is examined at Exh.15 and PW-3 Rekhabai is examined at Exh.16. They are neighbours who had seen Leelabai in critical condition. They also stated that the appellant was at the house. Since condition of Leelabai was serious, Dr.Katariya was called. He came and examined Leelabai and advised the appellant to remove Leelabai to some hospital at Jalgaon. Thereafter, appellant made telephone to the parents of Leelabai and requested them to come. As per evidence of Rekhabai, Dr.Katariya had even said that if even appellant was not having money, he was ready to pay money for treatment of his wife. Accordingly, appellant accepted money from Dr.Katariya and took his wife Leelabai to Jalgaon in an auto-rickshaw. Fact remains that appellant had taken Leelabai to hospital of Dr.Narkhede. 14. As per evidence of Rekhabai, Dr.Katariya had even said that if even appellant was not having money, he was ready to pay money for treatment of his wife. Accordingly, appellant accepted money from Dr.Katariya and took his wife Leelabai to Jalgaon in an auto-rickshaw. Fact remains that appellant had taken Leelabai to hospital of Dr.Narkhede. 14. PW-10 Dr.Narkhede has stated that he owns Mansi Hospital at Jalgaon. He runs it from 1996. Leelabai was admitted on 4.2.2005 at 6.00 p.m. She was in unconscious state and there was some smell of poisonous substance. Leelabai was under his treatment till 2.00 a.m. of 5.2.2005. At 2.10 a.m., on 5.2.2005, she breathed her last. Thereafter, he informed Police. Police took the dead body of Leelabai to Civil Hospital at Jalgaon. Dr.Narkhede had brought all the case papers of Leelabai. He also proved certificate Exh.45 issued by him. Evidence of Dr.Narkhede clearly indicates that Leelabai was administered Organo Phosphorous compound. Leelabai was also having problem of menstruation, which was due to hormonal imbalance. Even prior to incident, twice Leelabai told him (Dr.Narkhede) that she was not feeling good and feeling uneasiness. 15. Dr.Dipti Payghan (PW-9) who performed post mortem has stated that on performing autopsy, she found all organs congested. She preserved viscera. The post mortem notes are at Exh.36. Dr.Rahul Mahajan was also present at the time of performing the post mortem. Viscera was sent for examination and according to her the cause of death of Leelabai was due to Organo-phosphorous poison, having brand name "Rogor". Chemical Analyzer’s certificate to that effect is at Exh.37. Absolutely, there is no reason to disbelieve evidence of Dr.Narkhede or Dr.Dipti Payghan when they said that death of Leelabai was as a result of poison and the poison used is an Organo-phosphorous called Rogor. 16. It is argued before us that considering illness of Leelabai, there is strong possibility of it being a case of suicide rather than homicide. Illness was stated to be motive for Leelabai to commit suicide. If we consider that the circumstances as appearing from abovesaid evidence, it is clear that the appellant, as stated by his father-in-law and brother-in-law was not happy with his wife. He was feeling that Leelabai was not befitting as a wife to a doctor like him. It has also come in evidence that since first delivery Leelabai was suffering from convulsions. He was feeling that Leelabai was not befitting as a wife to a doctor like him. It has also come in evidence that since first delivery Leelabai was suffering from convulsions. This long illness and the impression that Leelabai was not suitable for appellant, taken with poor financial condition forms a motive to eliminate Leelabai. It appears from record that the appellant was living with his two children and wife in one room, which was being used both for residence and as a dispensary, with one curtain separating two parts of the room. The appellant must be suffering financial difficulties otherwise he would have definitely taken separate rooms on rent for dispensary and residence. So possibility of appellant administering of poison is more. Thus, there was motive for the appellant to commit murder of Leelabai. 17. PW-8 Yuvraj Choudhari, the panch witness is examined at Exh.31 and A.P.I. Rajiv Shirsath is examined at Exh.33. Both of them stated that the appellant, while he was in police custody on 9.2.2005 gave statement that he had thrown bottle of poison and syringe in the Well adjoining his house and he would point out the said Well. The memorandum (Exh.33) shows that appellant also showed willingness to produce two insurance policies one for Rs.1 lac and other for Rs.2 lac. Accordingly the appellant led Police and Panchas to his house at Kalamsare and pointed out the Well. In presence of panchas and Investigating Officer, one Atmaram Pawar entered into the said Well with the help of rope and he brought out from the Well one Aluminium tin bearing name Dimethoate. He also brought out one syringe. Those articles were in the Well which has diameter of two and half feet and depth of about 40- 45 feet. Panchnama was drawn from 1.45 to 4.45 p.m. Both the panchas and Investigating Officer have stated that the articles were labelled, sealed and attached. The evidence of A.P.I. Shirsath further shows that he had sent the said articles to Chemical Analyzer for examination. Chemical Analyzer’s report is at Exh.67. It shows that the aluminium bottle bearing name Dimethoate and the syringe were having traces of Organo-phosphorous insecticide dimethoate (Rogor). So, the container of the poison so also the syringe contained traces of same poison that was found in the viscera of the deceased. Chemical Analyzer’s report is at Exh.67. It shows that the aluminium bottle bearing name Dimethoate and the syringe were having traces of Organo-phosphorous insecticide dimethoate (Rogor). So, the container of the poison so also the syringe contained traces of same poison that was found in the viscera of the deceased. Ordinarily, if it was a case of suicide, Leelabai would have just consumed the poison directly from the aluminium container and there would not have traces of poison in the syringe. Poison in both are possible only in case a person practising medicine and one who can use syringe had administered poison and in the present case in all probabilities it could be only the appellant. 18. The first case cited by learned A.P.P. Shri Patil is "Anant Chintaman Lagu v. The State of Bombay (AIR 1960 Supreme Court 500), in which in para 58 and 59, it is observed that in case of murder by poisoning, the prosecution must establish (a) that death took place by poisoning; (b) that the accused had the poison in his possession; and (c) that the accused had an opportunity to administer the poison to the deceased. In the present case, the death has taken place as a result of poisoning. The discovery of poison by the appellant clearly indicates that he was in possession of the poison. Since the appellant was only person treating his wife Leelabai, he had an opportunity to administer poison. 19. In the case of Anant Chintaman Lagu (supra), it is further observed that while abovesaid three propositions must be kept in mind always, the sufficiency of the evidence, direct or circumstantial, to establish murder by poisoning will depend on the facts of each case. If the evidence in a particular case does not justify the inference that death is the result of poisoning because of the failure of the prosecution to prove the fact satisfactorily, either directly or by circumstantial evidence, then the benefit of doubt will have to be given to the accused person. But if circumstantial evidence, in the absence of direct proof of the three elements, is so decisive that the Court can unhesitatingly hold that the death was a result of administration of poison (though not detected) and that the poison must have been administered by the accused person, then the conviction can be rested on it. 20. But if circumstantial evidence, in the absence of direct proof of the three elements, is so decisive that the Court can unhesitatingly hold that the death was a result of administration of poison (though not detected) and that the poison must have been administered by the accused person, then the conviction can be rested on it. 20. In the case of "Jaipal vs. State of Haryana 2003 (1) S.C.C. 169 ", it is held that for drawing inference that it is a case of death by celphos poisoning merely foul smell coming out of the mouth of deceased is not sufficient. In that case, samples of vomits were seized from inside and outside the house of appellant J and it is held that it cannot be doubtlessly concluded to be a case of death of celphos poisoning. In that case, it is observed that merely because accused could have had a motive, it would not by itself be enough to sustain the finding of guilt against him. 21. In the case of "Geejaganda Somaiah vs. State of 1681)" Karnataka (2007 AIR SCW 1681)", it is observed that before conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence, following conditions must be fulfilled. (1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established; (2) The circumstances concerned must or should and not may be established; (3) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; (4) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 22. The learned Advocate for the appellant relied upon the case of " Ramgopal v. State of Maharashtra" (AIR 656) 1972 SUPREME COURT 656). 22. The learned Advocate for the appellant relied upon the case of " Ramgopal v. State of Maharashtra" (AIR 656) 1972 SUPREME COURT 656). In that case, it is observed in para 15 that in a case of death by poisoning, it is only when motive is there and it is proved, that the deceased died of the poison in question, that the accused had that poison in his possession and that he had an opportunity to administer the poison to the deceased that the Court can infer that the accused administered the poison to the deceased resulting in his death. In the case before Their Lordships, neither motive nor administration of poison nor its possession was proved and, therefore, the accused was acquitted. 23. In the case of "Jasbir Kaur v. State of Punjab" 151) (AIR 1993 SUPREME COURT 151), there was circumstantial evidence regarding death due to poison and main witness was the young son of 12 years of deceased. He deposed as to his being asked by one of two accused who were in kitchen, to take glass of tea and give it to his mother, deceased. Entire glassful was swallowed in presence of son without any signs of distaste though poison in question tastes bitter. Witness came out with aforesaid version only after two or three days. It was not known which of the two accused had prepared tea. From said facts of the case it could not be concluded that tea contained deadly dose of poison. Cause of death was not held to be result of taking tea. Therefore, the accused was acquitted. In this case, we have already indicated that we are not relying on the evidence of PW-4 Kalpesh. Another son Chandrakant reference to whom is made in the F.I.R. lodged by PW-1 Dattu is not examined. In the case of "Ramdas vs. State of Maharashtra" 1977 - AIR (SC) 1164, in the facts and circumstances of particular case, it is observed that chances of it being a case of suicide, were as much as it being a case of homicide. It is observed in para 15 that possibility of accused having disposed of the poison out of fear of being arrested on charge of murder were there. The prosecution did not prove that it was parathion poison which had caused the death. It is observed in para 15 that possibility of accused having disposed of the poison out of fear of being arrested on charge of murder were there. The prosecution did not prove that it was parathion poison which had caused the death. So, each case depends on facts and circumstances of said case. In this case, the statement of accused/appellant in memorandum Exh.32 that he had thrown the container of the poison alongwith syringe into the Well would be admissible in evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 24. One of the major circumstance is the conduct of the appellant on the entire day of 4th February 2005. If somebody else had administered poison to Leelabai or if Leelabai had consumed poison and when Leelabai was under treatment of appellant, the appellant would have raised hue and cry and would have told about it to everyone including his in-laws and neighbours. His silence speaks everything. Dr.Narkhede told about the poison being found in the stomach of Leelabai, to brother and father of deceased Leelabai. It cannot be believed that appellant was not knowing about it. At least after death of Leelabai, the appellant would have informed police that it was a case of suicide. Such silence is a major circumstance against him. His conduct is not consistent with his innocence. 25. It is argued before us that ordinarily, if there was forcible administration of poison like Rogor, deceased Leelabai would have resisted and would have spit out poison, but it may be noted that Leelabai was under treatment, she was suffering from vomiting and loose motions for 2-3 days. Question arises whether she had strength to resist. Here administration was by her own husband who was treating her and a syringe appears to have been used. It is also argued that Atmaram Pawar is not examined. In our opinion, said omission will not be material. Both panchas and Investigating Officer have proved the discovery. They have stood the gruelling cross-examination by the defence Advocate. In this case, there were no chances of planting, as no one must be interested in falsely involving the appellant. His in-laws were resident of another village Daskebardi. If appellant was really innocent he would have told his father-in-law and brother-in-law that it was a case of attempt of suicide by his wife and that she had consumed the poison. 26. His in-laws were resident of another village Daskebardi. If appellant was really innocent he would have told his father-in-law and brother-in-law that it was a case of attempt of suicide by his wife and that she had consumed the poison. 26. To sum up, the prosecution has established that the appellant had motive to commit murder of his wife for various reasons stated earlier. The very fact that appellant was the person who had thrown the container of poison, tube of saline and syringe into the Well adjacent to his house shows that he was in possession of the container and the syringe. The use of syringe and traces of poison in the syringe excludes possibility of poisoning by anybody else and also possibility of suicide by Leelabai herself. We have also referred to the conduct of the appellant throughout the day. Considering the totality, circumstantial evidence against the appellant is sufficient to base conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 27. So far as offence under Section 33 of the Maharashtra Medical Practitioner’s Act, 1961 is concerned, the evidence on record, particularly of Dr.Katikar at Exh.72, clearly established that appellant was not a registered medical practitioner and he was practising medicine without necessary qualification. The trial Court discussed evidence in detail in para 18 to 26. For reasons given by the trial Court, in our opinion, the conviction of the appellant under Section 33 of the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961 is justified. 28. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, in our opinion, the inference drawn by the trial Court that circumstantial evidence formed complete chain is justified. No hypothesis from the same can be drawn which is consistent from the innocence of the appellant. In the facts and circumstances, this appeal must fail. 29. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge is hereby confirmed.