Important Leading Judgements
SHARAD BIRDICHAND SARDA V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA; AIR 1984 1622
Head Note
Supreme Court of India : Upload Date - 9/21/2016
IMPORTANT SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT-
GOLDEN PRINCIPLES IN CASE OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCES-
1.The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
2. 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.
3. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved and;
5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not o 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.
PETITIONER:
SHARAD BIRDHI CHAND SARDA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
DATE OF JUDGMENT17/07/1984
BENCH:
FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA
BENCH:
FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA
VARADARAJAN, A. (J)
MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)
CITATION:
1984 AIR 1622 1985 SCR (1) 88
1984 SCC (4) 116 1984 SCALE (2)445
CITATOR INFO :
D 1988 SC1101 (22)
F 1990 SC 79 (21)
R 1991 SC 917 (37,42,50)
R 1991 SC1842 (6)
ACT:
Constitution of India, 1950, Article 136-Interference
by the Supreme Court with the concurrent findings of fact of
the courts below, normally not permissible-Special
circumstance like errors of law, violation of well
established principles of criminal jurisprudence etc. would
be necessary for interference.
Evidence-Circumstantial evidence, nature and proof of-
Conditions precedent for conviction-Evidence Act Section 3
(Act 1 of 1972).
Evidence-Circumstantial evidence-Onus of proof-
Prosecution must prove every link of the chain and complete
chain-Infirmity or lacuna in the prosecution cannot be cured
by false defence or plea-A person cannot be convicted on
pure moral conviction-False explanation can be used as
additional link to fortify the prosecution case, subject to
satisfaction of certain conditions.
Doctrine of Proximity, concept of, nature and limits
explained-Admissibility of statements and dying declarations
under sections 8, 32 of the Evidence Act.
Murder by administration of poison-Circumstances that
should be looked into before a conviction-Penal Code (Act
XLV of 1860) Section 300.
Evidence, appreciation of-Evidence of interested
witnesses, especially that of close relatives of the
deceased-Duty of the Court-Evidence Act (Act I of 1872)
Section 3.
Benefit of doubt-When two views are possible, one
leading to the guilt of the accused and the other leading to
his innocence, the benefit of doubt should go to the accused
entitling his acquittal-Evidence Act (Act I of 1872)
Sections 101-104.
Examination of the accused under Section 313 of Crl.
P.C.-Circumstances not put to the accused to explain, cannot
be considered for conviction-Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (Act II of 1974) Section 313.
HEADNOTE:
The appellant, Rameshwar, Birdhichand Sarda, Ramvilas
Rambagas Sarda, were accused 1, 2 and 3 respectively in
Sessions Case No. 203 of 1982 on the file of the Additional
Sessions Judge, Pune. The appellant and the second accused
are the sons of one Birdhichand of Pune whose family has a
cloth business. In addition, the appellant, a graduate in
Chemical Engineering had
89
started a chemical factory at Bhosari, a suburb of Pune. The
third accused is uncle of the appellant and the second
accused. The appellant is the husband of Manjushree alias
Manju while the second accused is the husband of Anuradha
(P.W. 35). Birdhichand's family has its residential house at
Ravivar Peth in Pune and owns a flat in a building known as
Takshasheela Apartments in Mukund Nagar area of Pune. All
the three accused were charged for the alleged offence of
murder by poisoning on the night of 11/12.6.1982 of Manju
the newly married wife of the first accused and the
appellant herein under section 302 I.P.C. read with section
120B. Accused No, 3 was also charged under section 201 read
with Section 120B I.P.C. The whole case vested on the
circumstantial evidence based on certain letters alleged to
have been written by the deceased to some of the witnesses
and other statements of the deceased to them and the medical
report. On an appreciation of the evidence the trial court
found all the three accused guilty as charged, convicted
them accordingly and sentenced the appellant to death under
s.302 I.P.C. and all the three accused to rigorous
imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 2,000 each
under s.120B I.P.C. but did not award any sentence under
s.201 read with s.120B.
The appellant and the other two accused file Criminal
Appeal No. 265/83 against their conviction and the sentences
awarded to them. The State filed a Criminal Revision
application for enhancement of the sentence awarded to
accused 2 and 3. The appeal as well as Criminal Revision
application was heard along with confirmation case No. 3 of
1983 together by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court
which allowed the appellants appeal in part regarding his
conviction and sentence under s.120B I.P.C. but confirmed
his conviction and sentence of death awarded under section
302 I.P.C., allowed the appeal of accused 2 and 3 in full
and acquitted them and dismissed the Criminal Revision
Application. Hence the appellant alone has come up before
the Supreme Court after obtaining Special Leave.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
^
HELD: (Per Fazal Ali, J.).
1:1. Normally, the Supreme Court does not interfere
with the concurrent findings of the fact of the courts below
in the absence of very special circumstances or gross errors
of law committed by the High Court. But, where the High
Court ignores or overlooks the crying circumstance and
proved facts, or violates and misapplies the well
established principles of criminal jurisprudence or decision
rendered by this Court on appreciation of circumstantial
evidence and refuses to give benefit of doubt to the accused
despite facts apparent on the face of the record or on its
own finding or tries to gloss over them without giving any
reasonable explanation or commits errors of law apparent on
the face of the record which results in serious and
substantial miscarriage of justice to the accused, it is the
duty of this Court to step in and correct the legally
erroneous decision of the High Court. [174E-G]
1:2. Suspicion, however, great it may be, cannot take
the place of legal proof. A moral conviction however, strong
or genuine cannot amount to a legal conviction supportable
in law. [174H]
1:3. The well established rule of criminal justice is
'fouler the crime higher the proof'. In the instant case,
the life and liberty of a subject was at
90
stake. As the accused was given a capital sentence a very
careful cautious and meticulous approach necessarily had to
be made by the Court. [175A]
2:1. The Indian law on the question of the nature and
scope of dying declaration has made a distinct departure
from the English law where only the statement which directly
relate to the cause of death are admissible. The second part
of cl.(1) of s.32, viz, "the circumstances of the
transaction which resulted in his death, in cases in which
the cause of that person's death comes into question" is not
to be found in the English Law. [107F-G]
2:2. From a review of the various authorities of the
Courts and the clear language of s.32(1) of Evidence Act,
the following propositions emerge: [108F]
(1) Section 32 is an exception to the rule of hearsay
and makes admissible the statement of a person who dies.
whether the death is a homicide or a suicide, provided the
statement relates to the cause of death, or relates to
circumstances leading to the death. In this respect, Indian
Evidence Act, in view of the peculiar conditions of our
society and the diverse nature and character of our people,
has thought it necessary to widen the sphere of s.32 to
avoid injustice. [108G-H]
(2) The test of proximity cannot be too literally
construed and practically reduced to a cut-and-dried formula
of universal application so as to be confined in a
straitjacket. Distance of time would depend or very with the
circumstances of each case. For instance, where death is a
logical clumination of a continuous drama long in process
and is, as it were, a finale of the story, the statement
regarding each step directly connected with the end of the
drama would be admissible because the entire statement would
have to be read as on organic whole and not torn from the
context. Sometimes statements relevant to or furnishing an
immediate motive may also be admissible as being a part of
the transaction of death. It is manifest that all these
statements come to light only after the death of the
deceased who speaks from death. For instance, where the
death takes place within a very short time of the marriage
or the distance of time is not spread over more than 3-4
months the statements may be admissible under s.32. [109B-D]
(3) The second part of cl.1 of s.32 is yet another
exception to the rule that in criminal law the evidence of a
person who was not being subjected to or given an
opportunity of being cross-examined by the accused, would be
valueless because the place of cross-examination is taken by
the solemnity and sanctity of oath for the simple reason
that a person on the verge of death is not likely to make a
false statement unless there is strong evidence to show that
the statement was secured either by prompting or tutoring.
[109E-F]
(4) Section 32 does not speak of homicide alone but
includes suicide also, hence all the circumstance which may
be relevant to prove a case of homicide would be equally
relevant to prove a case of suicide. [109-G]
(5) Where the main evidence consists of statements and
letters written by the deceased which are directly connected
with or related to her death and
91
which reveal a tell-tale story, the said statement would
clearly fell within the four corners of s.32 and, therefore,
admissible. The distance of time alone in such cases would
not make the statement irrelevant. [109H]
Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1952] S.C.R. 1091;
Dharambir Singh v. State of Punjab Criminal Appeal No. 98 of
1958 decided on 4.11.58 =AIR 1958 SC 152; Ratan Gond v. The
State of Bihar [1959] SCR 1336; Pakala Narayana Swami v.
Emperor AIR 1939 PC 47; Shiv Kumar & Ors v. The State of
Uttar Pradesh Crl. Appeal No. 55 of 1966 decided on 29.7.66
=(1966) Crl. Appeal SC 281; and Protima Dutta & Anr. v. The
State, C.W.N. 713 referred to.
Manohar Lal & Ors. v. State of Punjab [1981] Cr.L.J,
1373; Onkar v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1974] Crl. L.J.
1200; Allijan Munshi v. The State AIR 1960 Bom. 290;
Chinnavalayan v. State of Madras [1959] M.L.J. 246;
Rajindera Kumar v. The State AIR 1960 Punjab 310; and State
v. Kanchan Singh & Anr. AIR 1954 All. 153. approved.
Gokul Chandra Chatterjee v. The State, AIR 1950 Cal.
306, overruled.
3:1. It is well settled that the prosecution must stand
or fall on its own legs and it cannot derive any strength
from the weakness of the defence. This is trite law.
However, where various links in a chain are in themselves
complete, then a false plea or a false defence may be called
into aid only to lend assurance to the Court. In other words
before using the additional link it must be proved that all
the links in the chain are complete and do not suffer from
any infirmity. It is not the law that where there is any
infirmity or lacuna in the prosecution case the same could
be cured or supplied by a false defence or a plea which is
not accepted by a Court. [162C-E]
3:2. Before a false explanation can be used as
additional link, the following essential conditions must be
satisfied: [165E]
1. Various links in the chain of evidence led by the
prosecution have been satisfactorily proved; [165E]
2. The said circumstance point to the guilt of the
accused with reasonable definiteness and; [165G]
3. The circumstances is in proximity to the time and
situation.[165H]
If these conditions are fulfilled only then a Court can
use a false explanation or a false defence as an additional
link to lend as assurance to the Court and not otherwise. On
the facts and circumstances of the present case this does
not appear to be such a case. There is a vital difference
between an incomplete chain of circumstances and a
circumstance, which, after the chain is complete, is added
to it merely to reinforce the conclusion of the court. Where
the prosecution is enable to prove any of the essential
principles laid down in Hanumant's case the High Court
cannot supply the weakness or the lacuna by taking aid of or
recourse to a false defence or a false plea. [166A; 166D-E]
92
3:3. Before a case against an accused vesting on
circumstantial evidence can be said to be fully established
the following conditions must be fulfilled as laid down in
Hanumat's v. State of M.P. [1953] SCR 1091. [163C]
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt
is to be drawn should be fully established; [163D]
2. The facts so established should be consistent with
the hypothesis of guilt and the accused, that is to say,
they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis
except that the accused is guilty; [163G]
3. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature
and tendency;[163G]
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except
the one to be proved; and [163H]
5. 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. [164B]
These five golden principles constitute the panchsheel
of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence and
in the absence of a corpus deliciti. [164B]
Hanumant v. The State of Madhya Pradesh [1952] SCR
1091; Tufail (Alias) Simmi v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1969]
3 SCC 198; Ramgopal v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1972 SC 656;
and Shivaji Sahabrao Babode & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra
[1973] 2 SCC 793 referred to.
3:4. The cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence
is that a case can be said to be proved only when there is
certain and explicit evidence and no pure moral conviction.
[164F]
The King v. Horry [1952] N.Z.L.R. III quoted with
approval.
Hanumant v. State of M.P. [1952] S.C.R. 1091; Dharambir
Singh v. The State of Punjab (Criminal Appeal No. 98 of 1958
decided on 4.11.58); Chandrakant Nyslchand Seth v. The State
of Bombay (Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 1957 decided on
19.2.58) Tufail (alias) Simmi v. State of U.P. [1969] 3
S.C.C. 198; Ramgopal v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1972 SC
656; Naseem Ahmed v. Delhi Administration [1974] 2 SCR
694/696 Mohan Lal Pangasa v. State of U.P. A.I.R. 1974 SC
1144/46; Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit v State of Maharashtra
[1981] 2 SCR 384/390; and M.C. Agarwal v. State of
Maharashtra [1963] 2 SCR 405/419 referred to.
Denonandan Mishra v The State of Bihar [1955] 2 SCR
570/582 distinguished.
Some of the statements which have a causal connection
with the death of Manju or the circumstances leading to her
death are undoubtedly admissible
93
under section 32 of the Evidence Act but other statements
which do not bear any proximity with the death or if at all
very remotely and indirectly connected with the death would
not be admissible. [121H]
3.5. In view of the close relationship and affection
any person in the position of the witness would naturally
have a tendency to exaggerate or add facts which may not
have been stated to them at all. This is human phychology
and no one can help it. Not that this is done consciously
but even unconsciously the love and affection for the
deceased would create a phychological hatred against the
supposed murderer, the court has to examine the evidence of
interested witnesses with very great care and caution. Even
if the witnesses were speaking a part of the truth or
perhaps the whole of it they would be guided by a spirit of
revenge or nemesis against the accused person and in this
process certain facts which may not or could not have been
stated may be imagined to have been stated unconsciously by
the witnesses in order to see that the offender is punished.
[122C-D]
3.6. A close and careful scrutiny of the evidence of
the witness (PWs 2, 3, 4 and 5) who are close relatives or
deceased and conspicuously reveals a story which is quite
different from the one spelt out from the letters (Exhs. 30,
32 and 33). In fact, the letters have a different tale to
tell particularly in respect of certain matters. They are:
[138D]
(i) There is absolutely no reference to suicidal pact
or the circumstances leading to the same; (ii) There is no
reference even to Ujvala and her illcit relations with the
appellant; (iii) There is no mention of the fact that the
deceased was not at all willing to go to Pune and that she
was sent by force; (iv) The complaints made in the letters
are confined to ill-treatment, loneliness, neglect and anger
of the husband but no apprehension has been expressed in any
of the letters that the deceased expected imminent danger to
her life from her husband; (v) In fact, in the letters she
had asked her sister and friend not to disclose her and
plight to her parents but while narrating the facts to her
parents, she herself violated the said emotional promise
which appears to be too good to be true and an after thought
added to strengthen the prosecution case; and (vi) If there
is anything inherent in the letters it is that because of
her miserable existence and gross ill-treatment by her
husband, Manju might have herself decided to end her life,
rather than bother her parents. Therefore, these witnesses
are not totally dependable so as to exclude the possibility
of suicide and to come to an irresistible inference, that it
was the appellant who had murdered the deceased. Though a
good part of the evidence is undoubtedly admissible, its
probative value is precious little in view of the several
improbabilities, [138E-H; 139A-B]
4.1. It is well-settled that where on the evidence two
possibilities are available or open one which goes in favour
of the prosecution and the other which benefits an accused,
the accused is undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of doubt.
[166H]
94
In the instant case, the evidence clearly shows that
two views are possible-one pointing to the guilt of the
accused and the other leading to his innocence. It may be
very likely that the appellant may have administered the
poison (potassium cyanide) to Manju but at the same time a
fair possibility that she herself committed suicide cannot
be safely excluded or eliminated. Hence, on this ground
alone the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt
resulting in his acquittal. [168B]
4.2. In the cases of murder by administering poison,
the Court must carefully scan the evidence and determine the
four important circumstances which alone can justify the
conviction: (1) There is a clear motive for an accused to
administer poison to the deceased; (ii) that the deceased
died of poison said to have been administered; (iii) that
the accused had the poison in his possession; and (iv) that
he had an opportunity to administer the poison to the
accused. [167F-H]
4.3. In the instant case, taking an over all picture on
this part of the prosecution case the position seems to be
as follows: [150D]
1. If the accused wanted to give poison while Manju was
wide awake, she would have put up stiffest possible
resistance as any other person in her position would have
done. Dr. Banerjee in his postmortem report has not found
any mark of violence or resistance even if she was
overpowered by the appellant she would have shouted and
cried and attracted persons from the neighbouring flats
which would have been a great risk having regard to the fact
that some of the inmates of the house had come only a short-
while before the appellant. [150E-F]
2. Another possibility which cannot be ruled out is
that potassium cyanide may have been given to Manju in a
glass of water if she happened to ask for it. But if this
was so, she being a chemist herself would have at once
suspected some foul play and once her suspicion would have
arisen it would be very difficult for the appellant to
murder her. [150G]
3. The third possibility is that as Manju had returned
pretty late to the flat and she went to sleep even before
the arrival of the appellant and then he must have tried
forcibly to administer the poison by the process of
mechanical suffociation, in which case alone the deceased
could not have been in a position to offer any resistance
but this opinion of doctor, has not been accepted by the
High Court, after a very elaborate consideration and
discussion of the evidence, the circumstances and the
medical authorities, found that the opinion of the doctor
that Manju died by mechanical suffocation had not been
proved or at any rate it is not safe to rely on such
evidence. [150H; 151A-C]
4. The other possibility that may be thought of is that
Manju died a natural death. This also is eliminated in view
of the report of the Chemical Examiner as confirmed by the
postmortem that the deceased died as a result of
administration of potassium cyanide. [152B]
95
5. The only other reasonable possibility that remains
is that as the deceased was fed up with the maltreatment by
her husband, in a combined spirit of revenge and hostility
after entering the flat she herself took potassium cyanide
and lay limp and lifeless. When the appellant entered the
room he must have thought that as she was sleeping she need
not be disturbed but when he found that there was no
movement in the body after an hour his suspicion was roused
and therefore he called his brother from the adjacent flat
to send for Dr. Lodha. [152C-D]
In these circumstances, it cannot be said that a
reasonable possibility of the deceased having committed
suicide as alleged by the defence cannot be safely ruled out
or eliminated. It is clear that the circumstances of the
appellant having been last seen with the deceased and has
administered the opinion has not been proved conclusively so
as to raise an irresistible inference that Manju's death was
a case of blatant homicide. [152E-F]
Further, in a matter of this magnitude it would be
quite natural for the members of the appellants family to
send for their own family doctor who was fully conversant
with the ailment of every member of the family. In these
circumstances there was nothing wrong if the appellant and
his brother went to a distance of one and a half kilometer
to get. Dr. Lodha. Secondly, Dr. Shrikant Kelkar was a skin
specialist whereas Dr. (Mrs,) Anjali Kelkar was a
Paediatrician and the appellant may have genuinely believed
that as they belonged to different branches, they were not
at all suitable to deal with such a serious case. The High
Court was, therefore, wrong in treating this circumstance
namely not calling the two Doctors in the flat, as an
incriminating conduct of the appellant. [157B-D]
The circumstances which were not put to the appellant
in his examination under S. 313 of the Criminal Procedure
Code must be completely excluded from considerating because
the appellant did not have any chance to explain them. Apart
from the aforesaid comments there is one vital defect in
some of the circumstances relied upon by the High Court
namely circumstances Nos. 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12,13, 16 and
17. [160B; 159B-C]
Fateh Singh Bhagat Singh v. State of Madhaya Pradesh
AIR 1953 SCR 468 ; Shamu Balu Chagule v. State of
Maharashtra 1976 1 SCC 438 and; Harijan Meha Jesha v. State
of Gujarat AIR 1979 SC 1566 referred to.
6. Viewing the entire evidence, the circumstance of the
case and the interpretation of the decisions of the Supreme
Court the legal and factual position are (i) that the five
golden principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in
Hanumant v. The State of M.P. [1952] SCR 1091 have not been
satisfied in the instant case. As a logical corollary, it
follows that cannot be held that the act of the accused
cannot be explained on any other hypothesis except the guilt
of the appellant nor can it be said that in all human
probability, the accused had committed the murder of Manju.
In other words, the prosecution has not fulfilled the
essential requirements of a criminal case which rests purely
on circumstantial evidence; (ii) From the recital in the
letters Ex. P30, Ex-P32 and Ex-P33 it can be safely held
96
that there was a clear possibility and a tendency on the
part of the deceased Manju to commit suicide due to
desperation and frustration. She seems to be tried of her
married life, but she still hoped against hope that things
might improve. She solemnly believed that her holy union
with her husband bring health and happiness to her but
unfortunately it seems to have ended in a melancholy
marriage which left her so lonely and frustrated so much of
emotional disorder resulting from frustration and pessimism
that she was forced to end her life. There can be no doubt
that Manju was not only a sensitive and sentimental women
was extremely impressionate and the letters show that a
constant conflict between her mind and body was going on and
unfortunately the circumstances which came into existence
hastened her end. People with such a psychotic philosophy or
bent of mind always dream of an ideal and if the said ideals
fails, the failure drives them to end their life, for they
feel that no charm is left in their life; (iii) The
prosecution has miserably failed to prove one of the most
essential ingredients of a case of death caused by
administration of poison i.e.. possession with the accused
(either by direct or circumstantial evidence) and on this
ground alone the prosecution must fails. (iv) That is
appreciating the evidence, the High Court has clearly
misdirected itself on many points, and has thus committed a
gross error of law; (iv) That the High Court has relied upon
decisions of this Court which are either in applicable or
which, on closer examination, do not support the view of the
High Court being clearly distinguishable; (vi) That the High
Court has taken a completely wrong view of law in holding
that even though the prosecution may suffer from serious
infirmities it could be reinforced by additional link in the
nature of false defence in order to supply the lacuna and
has thus committed a fundamental error or law; (vii) That
the High Court has not only misappreciated the evidence but
has completely overlooked the well established principles of
law and has merely tried to accept the prosecution case
based on tenterhooks and slender tits and bits; (viii) It is
wholly unsafe to rely on that part of the evidence of Dr.
Banerjee (PW 33) which shows that poison was forcibly
administered by the process of mechanical suffociation; (ix)
There is no manifest defect in the investigation made by the
police which appears to be honest and careful. A proof
positive of this fact is that even though Rameshwar
Birdichand and other members of his family who had
practically no role to play had been arraigned as accused
but they had to be acquitted by the High Court for lack of
legal evidence; (x) That in view of the findings two views
are clearly possible in the present case, the question of
defence being false does not arise. [172E-H; 173A-H; 174A-D]
Per Varadarajan, J.
(Per contra on facts.)
1:1. The three letters Exh. P 30, Exh. P 32 and Exh. P
33 and the oral evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 5, 6, and 20 are
inadmissible in evidence under section 32(1) of the Evidence
Act. There is no acceptable evidence on record to show that
either the appellant or his parents ill-treated the
desceased Manju and that the appellant had any illicit
intimacy with PW 37 Ujvala. The alleged oral statement of
Manju and what she has stated in her letters Exh. 30, 32 and
33 may relate to matters perhaps having a very remote
bearing on the cause or the circumstances of her death.
Those circumstances do not have any proximate
97
relation to the actual occurrence resulting in her death due
to potassium cyanide poison though for instance in the case
of prolonged poisoning they may relates to dates
considerably distant from the date of the actual fatal dose.
They are general impressions of Manju indicating fear or
suspicion, whether of a particular individual or otherwise
and not directly related to the occasion or her death. It is
not the case of the prosecution either that the present case
is one of porlonged poisoning. [187B; 190D-F]
1: 2. The fact that the High court has rejected the
case of the prosecution based on Dr. Banerjee's report and
evidence that it was also a case of mechanical suffocation
is not one that could be taken into consideration as a
mitigating circumstance in judging the conduct of the doctor
who had conducted the autopsy in a case of suspicious death.
The conduct of the doctor in making certain later
interpolations in the case of suspicious death in which the
appellant has been sentenced to death by the two courts
below deserves serious condemnations. The doctor has
tempered with material evidence in the case of alleged
murder may be at the instance of somebody else, ignoring the
probable consequences of his act. In these circumstances Dr.
Banerjee PW 33 is person who should not be entrusted with
any serious and responsible work such as conducting autopsy
in public interest. In this case the appellant would have
gone to gallows on the basis of the evidence of PW 33 as he
would have the Court to believe it, and the other evidence,
if they had been accepted. [193D-H]
1: 3. Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code lays down
that in every inquiry or trial for the purpose of enabling
the accused personally to explain any circumstance appearing
in the evidence against him, the court may at any stage
without previously warning the accused, put such questions
to him as the court considers necessary and shall, after the
witnesses for the prosecution have been examined and before
he is called for his defence, question him generally on the
case. Hence the evidence on the basis on which question Nos.
25, 30, 32, and 115 have been put to the appellant are
wholly irrelevant as these questions do not relate to any
circumstance appearing in the against the appellant. The
learned Additional Sessions Judge was bound to exercise
control over the evidence being tendered in his court and to
know the scope of the examination of the accused under
Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code [195A-C]
Per Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. (Concurring)
Though the test of proximity cannot and should not be
two literally construed and be reduced practically to a cut-
and-dried formula of universal application, it must be
emphasised that wherever it is extended beyond the
immediate, it should be explained and must be done with very
great caution and care. As a general proposition it cannot
be laid down for all purposes that for instance where the
death takes place within a short time of marriage and the
distance of time is not spread over three or four months,
the statement would be admissible under Section 32 of the
evidence Act. This is always not so and cannot be so. In
very exceptional circumstances such statements may be
admissible and that too not for proving the positive fact,
namely raising some doubt about the guilt of the accused
[197D-F]
98
JUDGMENT:
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
745 of 1983
From the Judgment and Order dated the 20th, 21st, 22nd,
23rd September 1983 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal
Appeal No. 265 of 1983 with confirmation case No. 3/83.
Ram Jethmalani, M.S. Ganesh, F. N. Ranka and Ms. Rani
Jethmalani for the Appellant.
K.G. Bhagat, Addl. Solicitor General, M.N. Shroff and
U.A. Jadhavrao for the Respondent.
The following Judgments were delivered
FAZAL ALI, J. This is rather an unfortunate case where
a marriage arranged and brought about through the
intervention of common friends of the families of the bride
and bridegroom though made a good start but ran into rough
weather soon thereafter. The bride, Manju, entertained high
hopes and aspirations and was not only hoping but was
anxiously looking forward to a life full of mirth and
merriment, mutual love and devotion between the two spouses.
She appears to be an extremely emotional and sensitive girl
at the very behest cherished ideal dreams to be achieved
after her marriage, which was solemnised on February 11,
1982 between her and the appellant, Sharad Birdhichand
Sarda. Soon after the marriage, Manju left for her new
marital home and started residing with the appellant in
Takshila apartments at Pune. Unfortunately, however, to her
utter dismay and disappointment she found that the treatment
of her husband and his parents towards her was cruel and
harsh and her cherished dreams seem to have been shattered
to pieces. Despite this shocking state of affairs she did
not give in and kept hoping against hope and being of a very
noble and magnanimous nature she was always willing to
forgive and forget. As days passed by, despite her most
laudable attitude she found that "things were not what they
seem" and to quote her own words "she was treated in her
husbands house as a labourer or as an unpaid maid-servant".
She was made to do all sorts of odd jobs and despite her
protests to her husband nothing seems to have happened. Even
so, Manju had such a soft and gentle frame of mind as never
to complain to her parents-in-law, not even to her husband
except sometimes. On finding things unbearable, she did
protest, and ex
99
pressed her feelings in clearest possible terms, in a fit of
utter desperation and frustration, that he hated her. Not
only this, when she narrated her woeful tale to her sister
Anju in the letters written to her (which would be dealt
with in a later part of the judgment), she took the abundant
care and caution of requesting Anju not to reveal her sad
plight to her parents lest they may get extremely upset,
worried and distressed.
Ultimately, things came to such a pass that Manju was
utterly disgusted and disheartened and she thought that a
point of no-return had reached. At last, on the fateful
morning of June 12,1982, i.e., nearly four months after her
marriage, she was found dead in her bed.
As to the cause of death, there appears to be a very
serious divergence between the prosecution version and the
defence case. The positive case of the prosecution was that
as the appellant was not at all interested in her and had
illicit intimacy with another girl, Ujvala, he practically
discarded his wife and when he found things to be unbearable
he murdered her between the night of June 11 and 12, 1982,
and made a futile attempt to cremate the dead body.
Ultimately, the matter was reported to the police. On the
other hand, the plea of the defence was that while there was
a strong possibility of Manju having been ill-treated and
uncared for by her husband or her in-laws, being a highly
sensitive and impressionate woman she committed suicide out
of sheer depression and frustration arising from an
emotional upsurge. This is the dominant issue which falls
for decision by this Court.
Both the High Court and the trial court rejected the
theory of suicide and found that Manju was murdered by her
husband by administering her a strong dose of potassium
cyanide and relied on the Medical evidence as also that of
the chemical examiner to show that it was a case of pure and
simple homicide rather than that of suicide as alleged by
the defence. The High Court while confirming the judgment of
the trial court affirmed the death sentence and hence this
appeal by special leave.
Before discussing the facts of the case, it may be
mentioned that although the High Court and the trial court
have gone into meticulous and minutest matters pertaining to
the circumstances leading to the alleged murder of Manju,
yet after going through the
100
judgments we feel that the facts of the case lie within a
very narrow compass.
The story of this unfortunate girl starts on 11.2.1982
when her marriage was solemnised with the appellant preceded
by a formal betrothal ceremony on 2.8.8. after the marriage,
Manju, for the first time, went to her parents' house on
22.2.82 for a very short period and returned to Pune on
26.2.82. It is the prosecution case that on 17.3.82 the
appellant had called Manju at Pearl Hotel where he
introduced her to Ujvala and told her that she must act
according to the dictates and orders of Ujvala if she wanted
to lead a comfortable life with her husband. In other words,
the suggestion was that the appellant made it clear to his
wife that Ujvala was the real mistress of the house and
Manju was there only to obey her orders. After this
incident, Manju went to her parents' house on 2.4.82 and
returned to Pune on 12.4.82. This was her second visit. The
third and perhaps the last visit of Manju to her parents'
house was on 25.5.82. from where she returned to Pune on
3.6.82, never to return again. The reason for her return to
Pune was that her father-in-law insisted that she should
return to Pune because the betrothal ceremony of Shobha
(sister of the appellant) was going to be held on 13.6.82.
The last step in this unfortunate drama was that Manju,
accompanied by Anuradha (wife of A-2) and her children,
returned to the flat on 11.6.82 near about 11.00 p.m. Her
husband was not in the apartment at that time but it is
alleged by the prosecution that he returned soon after and
administered potassium cyanide to Manju. Thereafter, the
appellant went to his brother, Rameshwar who was also living
in the same flat and brought Dr. Lodha (PW 24) who was
living at a distance of 11/2 Kms from Takshila Apartments.
At the suggestion of Dr. Lodha Dr. Gandhi (PW 25) was also
called both and of them found that Manju was dead and her
death was an unnatural one and advised the body to be sent
for postmortem in order to determine the cause of death.
Ultimately, Mohan Asava (PW 30) was approached on telephone
and was informed that Manju had died at 5.30 a.m.
Subsequently, the usual investigation and the postmortem
followed which are not very germane for our purpose at
present and would be considered at the appropriate stage.
The plea of the appellant was that Manju was not
administered potassium cyanide by him but she appears to
have committed
101
suicide out of sheer frustration. In order to prove his bona
fide the accused relied on the circumstances that as soon
as he came to know about the death of his wife he called two
Doctors (PWs 24 & 25) and when they declared that Manju had
died an unnatural death, as the cause of death was not
known, and therefore the body had to be sent for postmortem,
he immediately took steps to inform the police. He flatly
denied the allegation of the prosecution that there was any
attempt on his part to persuade Mohan Asava (PW 30) to allow
the body of the deceased to be cremated.
We might state that the High Court has mentioned as
many as 17 circumstances in order to prove that the
circumstantial evidence produced by the prosecution was
complete and conclusive, Some of 13 these circumstances
overlap, some are irrelevant and some cannot be taken into
consideration because they were not put to the appellant in
his statement under s. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
in order to explain the effect of the Code of Criminal
Procedure in order to explain the effect of the same as we
shall presently show.
The law regarding the nature and character of proof of
circumstantial evidence has been settled by several
authorities of this Court as also of the High Courts, The
locus classicus of the decision of this Court is the one
rendered in the case of Hanumant v. The State of Madhya
Pradesh where Mahajan, J. clearly expounded the various
concomitants of the proof of a case based purely on
circumstantial evidence, and pointed out thus:
"The circumstances should be of a conclusive
nature and tendency and they should be such as to
exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be
proved..... it must be such as to show that within all
human probability the act must have been done by the
accused."
This decision was followed and endorsed by this Court
in the case of Dharambir Singh v. The State of Punjab. We
shall however discuss Hanumant's case fully in a later part
of our judgment. Coming now to the question of
interpretation of sec. 32(1) of The Evidence Act, this Court
in the case of Ratan Gond v. State of Bihar S.K. Das, J.
made the following observations:
102
"The only relevant clause of s. 32 which may be
said to have any bearing is cl.(1) which relates to
statements made by a person as to the cause of his
death or as to any of the circumstances of the
transaction which resulted in his death. In the case
before us, the statements made by Aghani do not relate
to the cause of her death or to any of the
circumstances relating to her death; on the contrary,
the statements relate to the death of her sister."
In the 'Law of Evidence' by Woodroffe & Ameer Ali (Vol.
II) the authors have collected all the cases at one
place and indicated their conclusions thus:
"To sum up, the test of the relevancy of a statement
under Section 32(1), is not what the final finding in
the case is but whether the final finding in the case
is but whether the cause of the death of the person
making the statement comes into question in the case.
The expression 'any of the Circumstances of the
transaction which resulted in his death'; is wider in
scope than the expression 'the cause of his death'; in
other words, Clause (1) of Section 32 refers to two
kinds of statements: (1) statement made by a person as
to the cause of his death, and (2) the statement made
by a person as to any of the circumstances of the
transaction which resulted in his death.
The words, 'resulted in his death' do not mean
'caused his death', Thus it is well settled that
declarations are admissible only in so far as they
point directly to the fact constituting the res gestae
of the homicide; that is to say, to the act of killing
and to the circumstances immediately attendant thereon,
like threats and difficulties acts, declarations and
incidents, which constitute or accompany and explain
the fact or transaction in issue.
They are admissible for or against either party, as
forming parts of the res gestae."
(P. 952)
It would appear that the solid foundation and the
pivotal pillar on which rests the edifice of the prosecution
may be indicated as follows:-
103
(1) Written dying declaration by the deceased in her
letters, two of which were addressed to her sister
Anju and one her friend Vahini,
(2) The oral statements made by the deceased to her
father (PW 2), mother (PW 20), Sister (PW 6) and
her friend (PW 3) and also to PWs 4 and 5 showing
her state of mind shortly before her death and the
complaints which she made regarding the ill-
treatment by her husband,
(3) evidence showing that the appellant was last seen
with the deceased in the room until the matter was
reported to the police.
(4) the unnatural and incriminating conduct of the
appellant,
(5) the medical evidence taken alongwith the Report of
the chemical examiner which demonstrably proves
that it was a case of homicide, completely rules
out the theory of suicide as alleged by the
appellant.
Mr. Jethmalani, learned counsel for the appellant, has
vehemently argued that there was a very strong possibility
of the deceased having committed suicide due to the
circumstances mentioned in her own letters. He has also
questioned the legal admissibility of the statements
contained in the written and oral dying declarations. He has
submitted that the so-called dying declarations are
admissible neither under s. 32 nor under s.8 of the Evidence
Act it was submitted by the appellant that the present case
is not at all covered by cl.(1) of s. 32 of the Evidence
Acts.
The leading decision on this question, which has been
endorsed by this Court, is the case of Pakala Narayana Swami
v. Emperor where Lord Atkin has laid down the following
tests:
"It has been suggested that the statement must be
made after the transaction has taken place, that the
person making it must be at any rate near death, that
the "circumstances" can only include the acts done when
and
104
where the death was caused. Their Lordships are of
opinion that the natural meaning of the words used does
not convey any of these limitations. The statement may
be made before the cause of death has arisen, or before
the deceased has any reason to anticipate being killed.
The circumstances must be circumstances of the
transaction: general expressions indicating fear or
suspicion whether of a particular individual or
otherwise and not directly related to the occasion of
the death will not be admissible-----------
Circumstances of the transaction" is a phrase no doubt
that conveys some limitations. It is not as broad as
the analogous use in "circumstantial evidence" which
includes evidence of all relevant facts. It is on the
other hand narrower than "res gestae". Circumstances
must have some proximate relation to the actual
occurrence. ----------It will be observed that "the
circumstances are of the transaction which resulted in
the death of the declarant."
These principles were followed and fully endorsed by a
decision of this Court in Shiv Kumar & Ors v. The State of
Uttar Pradesh where the following observations were made:
"It is clear that if the statement of the deceased
is to be admissible under this section it must be a
statement relating to the circumstances of the
transaction resulting in his death. The statement may
be made before the cause of death has arisen, or before
the deceased has any reason to anticipate being
killed,---------A necessary condition of admissibility
under the section is that the circumstance must have
some proximate relation to the actual occurrence-------
---- The phrase "circumstances of the transaction" is a
phrase that no doubt conveys some limitations. It is
not as broad as the analogous use in "circumstantial
evidence" which includes evidence of all relevant
facts. It is on the other hand narrower than "res
gestae" (See Pakala Narayana Swami v. The King Emperor
AIR 1939 PC 47).
The aforesaid principles have been followed by a long
catena of authorities of almost all the courts which have
been noticed in this case. To mention only a few important
once, in Manoher Lal
105
& ors. v. The State of Punjab, the Division Bench of the
Punjab & Haryana High Court observed thus:
The torture administered sometimes manifests
itself in various forms. To begin with, it might be
mental torture and then it may assume the form of
physical torture. The physical harm done to the victim
might be increased from stage to stage to have the
desired effect. The fatal assault might be made after a
considerable interval of time, but if the circumstances
of the torture appearing in the writings of the
deceased come into existence after the initiation of
the torture the same would be held to be relevant as
laid down in Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act."
We fully agree with the above observations made by the
learned Judges. In Protima Dutta & Anr. v. The State while
relying on Hanumant's case (supra) the Calcutta High Court
has clearly pointed out the nature and limits of the
doctrine of proximity and has observed that in some cases
where there is a sustained cruelty, the proximity may extend
even to a period of three years. In this connection, the
High Court observed thus:
"The 'transaction' in this case is systematic ill
treatment for years since the marriage of Sumana with
incitement to end her life. Circumstances of the
transaction include evidence of cruelty which produces
a state of mind favourable to suicide. Although that
would not by itself be sufficient unless there was
evidence of incitement to end her life it would be
relevant as evidence.
This observation taken as a whole would, in my
view, imply that the time factor is not always a
criterion in determining whether the piece of evidence
is properly included within "circumstances of
transaction. "--------"In that case the allegation was
that there was sustained cruelty extending over a
period of three years interspersed with exhortation to
the victim to end her life." His Lordship further
observed and held that the evidence of cruelty was one
continuous chain, several links of which were touched
up by the exhortations to die. "Thus evidence
106
of cruelty, ill treatment and exhortation to end her
life adduced in the case must be held admissible,
together with the statement of Nilima (who committed
suicide) in that regard which related to the
circumstances terminating in suicide."
Similarly, in Onkar v. State of Madhya Pradesh while
following the decision of the Privy Council in Pakala
Narayana Swami's case (supra), the Madhya Pradesh High Court
has explained the nature of the circumstances contemplated
by s. 32 of the Evidence Act thus:
"The circumstances must have some proximate
relation to the Actual occurrence and they can only
include the acts done when and where the death was
caused.------- Thus a statement merely suggesting
motive for a crime cannot be admitted in evidence
unless it is so intimately connected with the
transaction itself as to be a circumstance of the
transaction. In the instant case evidence has been led
about statements made by the deceased long before this
incident which may suggest motive for the crime."
In Allijan Munshi v. State, the Bombay High Court has
taken a similar view.
In Chinnavalayan v. State of Mad ras two eminent Judges
of the Madras High Court while dealing with the connotation
of the word 'circumstances' observed thus:
"The special circumstance permitted to transgress
the time factor is, for example, a case of prolonged
poisoning, while the special circumstance permitted to
transgress the distance factor is, for example, a case
of decoying with intent to murder. This is because the
natural meaning of the words, according to their
Lordships, do not convey any of the limitations such as
that the statement must be made after the transaction
has taken place, that the
107
person making it must be at any rate near death, that
the circumstances can only include acts done when and
where the death was caused. But the circumstances must
be circumstances of the transaction and they must have
some proximate relation to the actual occurrence."
In Gokul Chandra Chatterjee v. The State the Calcutta
High Court has somewhat diluted the real concept of
proximity and observed thus:
'In the present case, it cannot be said that
statements in the letters have no relation to the cause
of death. What drove her to kill herself was
undoubtedly her unhappy state of mind, but the
statements in my view have not that proximate relation
to the actual occurrence as to make them admissible
under s. 32(1), Evidence Act. They cannot be said to be
circumstances of the transaction which resulted in
death."
We, however, do not approve of the observations made by
the High Court in view of the clear decision of this Court
and that of the privy Council. With due respect, the High
Court has not properly interpreted the tenor and the spirit
of the ratio laid down by the Privy Council. We are,
therefore, of the opinion that this case does not lay down
the correct law on the subject.
Before closing this chapter we might state that the
Indian law on the question of the nature and scope of dying
declaration has made a distinct departure from the English
law where only the statements which directly relate to the
cause of death are admissible. The second part of cl.(1) of
32, viz. "the circumstances of the transaction which
resulted in his death, in cases in which the cause of that
person's death comes into question" is not be found in the
English law. This distinction has been clearly pointed out
in the case of Rajindera Kumar v. The State where the
following observations were made:
"Clause (1) of s. 32 of the Indian Evidence Act
provides that statements, written or verbal, of
relevant facts made by a person who is dead,--------are
themselves rele-
108
vant facts when the statement is made by a person as to
the cause of his death, or as to any of the
circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his
death, in case, in which the cause of that person's
death comes into question.---------- It is well settled
by now that there is difference between the Indian Rule
and the English Rule with regard to the necessity of
the declaration having been made under expectation of
death.
In the English Law the declaration should have
been made under the sense of impending death whereas
under the Indian Law it is not necessary for the
admissibility of a dying declaration that the deceased
at the time of making it should have been under the
expectation of death.
And in the case of State v. Kanchan Singh & Anr. it was
observed thus:
"The law in India does not make the admissibility
of a dying declaration dependent upon the person's
having a consciousness of the approach of death. Even
if the person did not apprehend that he would die, a
statement made by him about the circumstances of his
death would be admissible under s. 32. Evidence Act.
In these circumstances, therefore, it is futile to
refer to English cases on the subject.
Thus, from a review of the authorities mentioned above
and the clear language of s.32(1) of the Evidence Act, the
following propositions emerge:-
(1) Section 32 is an exception to the rule of
hearsay and makes admissible the statement of a person
who dies, whether the death is a homicide or a suicide,
provided the statement relates to the cause of death,
or exhibits circumstances leading to death. In this
respect, as indicated above, the Indian Evidence Act,
in view of the peculiar conditions of our society and
the diverse nature and
109
character of our people, has thought it necessary to
widen the sphere of s.32 to avoid injustice.
(2) The test of proximity cannot be too literally
construed and practically reduced to a cut-and-dried
formula of universal application so as to be confined
in a straitjacket. Distance of time would depend or
vary with the circumstances of each case. For instance,
where death is a logical culmination of a continuous
drama long in process and is, as it were, a finale of
the story, the statement regarding each step directly
connected with the end of the drama would be admissible
because the entire statement would have to be read as
an organic whole and not torn from the context.
Sometimes statements relevant to or furnishing an
immediate motive may also be admissible as being a part
of the transaction of death. It is manifest that all
these statements come to light only after the death of
the deceased who speaks from death. For instance, where
the death takes place within a very short time of the
marriage or the distance of time is not spread over
more than 3-4 months the statement may be admissible
under s.32.
(3) The second part of cl.1 of s.32 is yet another
exception to the rule that in criminal law the evidence
of a person who was not being subjected to or given an
opportunity of being cross-examined by the accused,
would be valueless because the place of cross-
examination is taken by the solemnity and sanctity of
oath for the simple reason that a person on the verge
of death is not likely to make a false statement unless
there is strong evidence to show that the statement was
secured either by prompting or tutoring.
(4) It may be important to note that s.32 does not
speak of homicide alone but includes suicide also,
hence all the circumstances which may be relevant to
prove a case of homicide would be equally relevant to
prove a case of suicide.
(5) Where the main evidence consists of statements
and letters written by the deceased which are directly
connected with or related to her death and which reveal
a tell-tale story, the said statement would clearly
fall within the four corners of s.32 and, therefore,
admissible. The distance of
110
time alone in such cases would not make the statement
irrelevant.
This now brings us to a close consideration of the
contents of the letters (Exhs. 30, 32 and 33) written by
Manju to her sister and friend. We propose to examine the
contents of the letters for four purposes:
1) in order to find out the state of mind and
psychological attitude of Manju,
2) the nature of Manju's attitude towards her husband
and in-laws,
3) the amount of tension and frustration which seems
to be clearly expressed in the letters and
4) to determine Manju's personal traits and
psychological approach to life to determine if she
was ever capable of or prone to committing
suicide.
We start with the letter dated 8.5.82 (Ex. 30) which
was addressed to her sister Anju and is printed at page 191
of Part I of the printed Paperbook. The learned counsel for
the appellant in order to make our task easy has supplied
the English translation as also the Roman script of the
original letter. On a comparison of the two versions, we are
of the opinion that by and large the English translation
printed in the Paperbook is a true and faithful rendering of
the contents of the original letter. It is not necessary for
us to extract the entire letter but we propose to extract
only the relevant portions which seek to explain and
illustrate the four purposes mentioned above.
"All read the letter with curiosity, or it may go
to anybody's hand. I do not want to take any risk. So I
have taken up today for writing, the second letter to
you." The Roman scripy runs thus:-
(P.191)
"Khat to sabhi utsukta se padte hain. Kahin kisi
ke hath pad saktahai. Aisi risk leni nahin aai. Isliye
maine tumhe aaj doosra khat likhneko liya."
(P.17)
An analysis of the above clearly shows that Manju was a
highly secretive woman and wanted to keep her personal
matters or
111
secrets to herself except giving a rough idea or a passing
glimpse of her feelings only to those who were very close to
her as friends or near relations. The extract shows that
perhaps in a spell of heavy emotions she had written a very
long letter to her sister whom she regarded as her best
friend but on second thought she tore it off lest it may
fall in anybody's hands and she was not prepared to take
such a risk. This mentality and noble nature would be of
great assistance to us in assessing the probative value of
the statements made by her to her parents, sister and friend
during her last visit to Beed. The second paragraph, which
is extracted below, reflects her state of mind and the
tension and torture which she was undergoing:
"Now in this letter, when (Out of) the things
coming to my mind which cannot be written, I do not
understand what is to be written, The State of mind now
is very much the same. Enough. You understand (me). I
am undergoing a very difficult test. I am unable to
achieve it. Till I could control (myself), well and
good. When it becomes impossible, some other way will
have to be evolved. Let us see what happens. All
right."
(P.191)
She has hinted that hinted that she was passing through
difficult times but was trying to control herself as much as
she could. She has further indicated that if things did not
improve then she may have to evolve some other method. The
exact words used in the Roman script runs thus:
"Jab tak sambhal sakti hoon theek hai jab
assambhab ho jayega to phir rasta nikalna padega,
dekhenge kya kya hota hai,"
The words "some other way will have to be evolved"
clearly gives a clue to her psychotic state of mind and seem
to suggest that the other method to get rid of all her
troubles was to commit suicide. It is pertinent to note that
in the first two paragraphs of her letter extracted above
there is no indication nor any hint about the conduct of her
husband.
In the third para of her letter she states her feelings
thus: "I thought much that since the house of my
husband's parents is at Pune, I would do this and that
or the people
112
from the house of my husband's parents are free.
However, I have gradually come to know that in that
house, the worth of a daughter-in-law is no more than
that of a laborer."
(P.191)
The relevant portion in the Roman script reads thus:
"Is ghar mein bahu ki keemat majdoor se jyada
nahin hai."
(P. 18)
At the end or the third paragraph she repeats her sad
plight thus:
"My state here however is like an unclaimed
person. Let it be gone. I do not like to weep (over
it). When we will meet, we will talk all the things."
In the middle of the 4th paragraph she comes out with
an emotional outburst by indicating that all her hopes had
been shattered and because of being neglected by her husband
her health was adversely affected. In the Roman script she
used the following words:
"Sachmuch kya kya sapne rahte hain kuarepanmein,
magar toote huye dekhkar dilpar kya gujarti hai. Vaise
tu maine kuch bhi sapne nahin dekhe the, bas ek hi
sapna tha ki mera pati mujhse bahut pyar kare, magar
abhi wo bhi na pakar dilki halat per kaboo nahin pa sak
rahi. Tabiyat par uska asar dikh raha hai."
(P. 19-20)
In the latter part of the 8th paragraph while giving
vent to her feelings she states thus:
"Now Manju is moving, it is necessary to tell that
she is alive. You don't tell anybody about this letter.
I felt like telling all this to Bhausab. What, however,
is the use of making him sorry. One should test one's
fate, whatever may be the result. I want to tell you
all. But I cannot tell."
The words used by her show her affectionate and
secretive nature and the precaution taken by her not to tell
any thing to her father, who is addressed as 'Bhausab'. The
Roman script of the relevant portion runs thus:
113
"Dil tu karta tha Bai Bhau Sahab ko sab bataon,
magar unko dukh dekar kya phaida. Apne apne naseeb
dekhenge, natija kya nikalta hai. Mujhe tumbein sab
kuch batana hai magar bata nahin sakti."
(P.22)
These extracts throw a flood of light on the nature,
character, mental attitude, suffering and shock of the
deceased. One thing which may be conspicuously noticed is
that she was prepared to take all the blame on her rather
than incriminate her husband or her inlaws. The other
portions of the letter (Ex.30) are not at all germane for
the purpose of this case. Summarising the main contents of
the letter, the following conclusions or inferences follow:
(a) Manju was a highly emotional and sensitive woman,
(b) She got the shock of her life when due to ill-
treatment by her husband and in-laws she found
that all her dreams had been shattered to pieces
after marriage leaving her a dejected, depressed
and disappointed woman,
(c) she had been constantly ill-treated by her in-laws
and her position in the house was nothing but that
of an unpaid maid-servant or a labourer,
(d) she wanted to keep all her worries and troubles to
herself and on no account was she prepared to
disclose them to her parents or even to her
sister, lest they also get depressed and
distressed.
(e) no serious allegation of cruelty had been made
against the husband personally by her and she
thought that she herself should suffer out of
sheer frustration.
Now we shall examine Ex.32 which is a letter dated
8.6.82 written by Manju to her sister Anju. This was perhaps
her last letter to Anju and is very important and relevant
for decision of the case. The letter begins with the words
"I am happy here." In the second paragraph she expresses her
feelings as follows:
"Shobhabai's 'Sadi' programme is fixed on 13th I
do not know why there is such a dirty atmosphere in the
house ? It is felt every moment that something will
happen.
114
Everybody is in tension. No work has been started in
the house. Let it go. I am out of mind. Still I am used
not to pay need to it. Ala what about your law."
(P.195)
So far as the first part is concerned, the 'dirty
atmosphere' about which she speaks is totally unrelated to
anything done by the husband or of any cruel treatment by
him; it merely refers to the tension prevailing in the
family as the 'Sadi' (Kohl) was fixed on 13.6.82. Her anger
is not so much towards her husband or herself as for the
manner in which things were being done. She complained that
no work had been started and being the eldest daughter in
law of the family she felt it her duty to see that all
arrangements were complete. It was conceded by the
Additional Solicitor-General that this portion of the letter
does not refer to any ill-treatment by the husband or his
parents but relates only to the defective and unsatisfactory
arrangements for such an important function. The relevant
portion of the 3rd paragraph is also more or less innocuous
but in between the lines it contains a tale of woe, a spirit
of desperation and frustration and a wave of pessimism. the
actual vernacular words are-
"Mera to aane ka kya hota hai dekna hai Buajike
yahan se khat aur aaya to shahid chance mil sakta hai.
Magar meri mangal ke dulhan ke roop mein dekhne ki
bahut ichha hai. Dekhenge."
She was naturally apprehending some thing and was not
very hopeful of going to her father's place. This being her
last letter, and that too a short one, it gives a clear
inkling of the manner of how her mind was working. She did
not lay any blame on her husband or anybody else but still
she was afraid that something was going to happen and that
she may not be able to go to her father and see the marriage
of her sister-in-law for which preparations were being made.
In our opinion, these words are extremely prophetic and seem
to indicate that by that time she had almost made up her
mind to end her life instead of carrying on her miserable
existence. As brevity is the soul of wit, she directly
hinted that she may not be able to meet her father or any
body naturally because when a life comes to an end there can
be no such question. Exh. 32, though a short letter, depicts
her real feeling and perhaps a tentative decision which she
may have already taken but did not want to disclose for
obvious reasons.
115
Then we come to Exh.33 which is a letter dated 23.4.82
written by the deceased to her close friend, Vahini and
which shows her exact feelings, changing, mood and emotions.
This is the only letter where she had made clear complaints
against her husband and the relevant portions may be
extracted thus:
"Really, Vahini, I remember you very much. Even if
I am little uneasy, I feel that you should have been
near with me.
All persons here are very good. Everybody is
loving. Still I feel lonely. One reason is that, in the
house there are many persons and they are elder to me
and such I do not dare to do any work independently.
Every time some fear is in mind which leads to
confusion.
God knows when I can come there ? The point on
which we had discussion is as it was. Vahini. I swear
you if you talk to anyone. I am much in pains. But what
else can I do ? No other go than that, and the same
mistake is done again and again by me. It is that I go
ahead and talk for ten times, then I become angry if he
does not speak. Vahini, there is nothing in my hands
except to weep profusely. At least till now this man
has no time to mind his wife, let it be, but Vahini,
what shall I do?" (P.196)
"Who knows what hardships be-fall on me, so long I
am alive. Why the god has become (unkind) towards me."
(P. 197)
"Since yesterday I have made up my mind not to
speak a word even, till he speaks (to me). Let me see
to what extent I control my feelings. Vahini, you also
pray to god for me whether a girl like me should be put
to such a difficult test. Vahini, I am so much afraid
of him that the romantic enchantment during first 10-15
days after marriage has become like a dream."
"I cannot dare to ask him whether his clothes be
taken for wash. At present my status is only that of a
maid servant without pay as of right.
116
Why so much indifference towards me only ? Vahini,
I, feel to weep in your arms. Vahini come to Pune
early.
On getting up every morning I feel he will speak
today but every day I am hoping against hope. Vahini,
what will happen ? Now there is no ray of hope.
Day before yesterday I became excited and uttered
in rage. "You hate me, was I unable to get food in my
parent's house ?
He was irritated due to word 'hate'. He said. if
you talk more like this, I will be very bad man.
If this goes on, I will not come to sleep. That
means not permitted (to cry) also. How he says to me,
are you tired of me so early ? What shall I say to such
a man. Once I feel that he does not count me. On second
thought, I feel he cares me much. But due to moody
nature, it will take time to pacify the same. On the
day on which self-pride is lessened, no other person
will be more fortunate than me But till that day it is
not certain that I will be alive."
(P. 197)
In the second paragraph she starts by giving an
indication that she was feeling uneasy and would have very
much liked to have Vahini with her. In the third paragraph
she clearly states that all persons in her father-in-laws'
place were very good and loving but due to a number of
persons in the house she did not get a chance to work
independently. The last line "every time some fear is in
mind which leads to confusion" is the starting point of the
first symptom of her invisible fear which she was unable to
locate. The fourth paragraph is rather important which shows
that whatever her feelings may have been she sought an oath
from Vahini not to talk to anyone regarding the matters
which she proposed to write in the said letter. She says
that she was much in pains and hints that she weeps
profusely and the reason given by her for this is that she
went on committing mistakes and talked to her husband many
times but his silence was extremely painful which made her
angry. In the last portion, for the first time, she makes a
direct complaint against her husband to the effect that he
had no time to look after her (Manju). In the same paragraph
she describes her hardships and complains
117
why God was unkind to her. She further expresses her
sentiments that the romantic enchantment which she
experienced during the first few days of her marriage had
completely disappeared and looks like a lost dream or a
"Paradise lost". Then she describes her plight as being a
maid-servant without pay. She again complains of
indifference towards her. Ultimately, she hopes against hope
that some day he will speak to her and discuss the problems
but there is no response. Later, she refers to a particular
incident and goes to the extent of telling him that he hates
her. This seems to have irritated the husband who resented
this remark very much. Again in the same breath towards the
end of the paragraph, while she says that her husband does
not care for her yet she at once changes her mind and says
that he cares for her much but due to his moody nature it
will take time to pacify him. Her feelings again take a
sudden turn when she says that when her husband's self-pride
is lessened none would be more fortunate than her. The next
line is rather important because she hints that till the
said heyday comes perhaps she might not be alive.
A careful perusal of this letter reveals the following
features-
(1) after going to her marital home she felt
completely lost and took even minor things to her
heart and on the slightest provocation she became
extremely sentimental and sensitive.
(2) She exhibited mixed feelings of optimism and
pessimism at the same time.
(3) it can easily be inferred that she did not have
any serious complaint against her husband but she
became sad and morose because she was not getting
the proper attention which she thought she would
get.
(4) There is no indication that she expected any
danger from her husband nor is there anything to
show that things had come to such a pass that a
catastrophe may have resulted. There may be
certain concealed and hidden hints which she was
not prepared to reveal in writing : what they were
is not clear.
(5) A close reading and analysis of the letter clearly
shows at least two things-
118
(a) that she felt extremely depressed,
(b) that there was a clear tendency resulting
from her psychotic nature to end her life or
commit suicide.
This possibility is spelt out from the various letters
which we have extracted. Indeed, if this was not so how
could it be possible that while not complaining against her
husband she gives a hint not only to Vahini but also to Anju
that she might not live. She mentions of no such threat
having been given to her by husband at any time or anywhere.
(6) The contents of the letter lead us to the
irresistible conclusion that Manju felt herself
lonely and desolate and was treated as nothing but
a chattel or a necessary evil ever since she
entered her marital home.
Thus, from the recitals in the letters we can safely
hold that there was a clear possibility and a tendency on
her part to commit suicide due to desperation and
frustration. She seems to be tired of her married life, but
she still hoped against hope that things might improve. At
any rate, the fact that she may have committed suicide
cannot be safely excluded or eliminated. It may be that her
husband may have murdered her but when two views are
reasonably possible the benefit must go to the accused. In
order to buttress our opinion, we would like to cite some
passages of an eminent psychiatrist, Robert J. Kastenbaum
where in his book 'Death, Society and Human Experience' he
analyses the causes, the circumstances, the moods and
emotions which may drive a person to commit suicide. The
learned author has written that a person who is psychotic in
nature and suffers from depression and frustration is more
prone to commit suicide than any other person. In support of
our view, we extract certain passages from his book :
"The fact is that some people who commit suicide
can be classified as psychotic or severely disturbed.
(P.242)
If we are concerned with the probability of
suicide in very large populations, then mental and
emotional disorder is a relevant variable to consider.
(P.243)
119
And it is only through a gross distortion of the
actual circumstances that one could claim all suicides
are enacted in a spell of madness.
(P.243)
"Seen in these terms, suicide is simply one of the
ways in which a relatively weak member of society loses
out in the jungle like struggle.
(P.243)
The individual does not destroy himself in hope of
thereby achieving a noble postmortem reputation or a
place among the eternally blessed. Instead he wishes to
subtract himself from a life whose quality seems a
worse evil than death.
(P.245)
The newly awakened spirit of hope and progress
soon became shadowed by a sense of disappointment and
resignation that, it sometimes seemed, only death could
swallow.
(P.245)
Revenge fantasies and their association with
suicide are well known to people who give ear to those
in emotional distress."
(P.251)
"People who attempt suicide for reasons other than
revenge may also act on the assumption that, in a
sense, they will survive the death to benefit by its
effect.
xx xx xx
The victim of suicide may also be the victim of
self-expectations that have not been fulfilled. The
sense of disappointment and frustration may have much
in common with that experienced by the person who seeks
revenge though suicide-However, for some people a
critical moment arrives when the discrepancy is
experienced as too glaring and painful to be tolerated.
If something has to go it may be the person himself,
not the perhaps excessively high standards by which the
judgment has been made-Warren Breed and his colleagues
found that a sense of
120
failure is prominent among many people who take their
own lives."
(P.252)
The above observations are fully applicable to the case
of Manju. She solemnly believed that her holy union with her
husband would bring health and happiness to her but
unfortunately it seems to have ended in a melancholy
marriage which in view of the circumstances detailed above,
left her so lonely and created so much of emotional disorder
resulting from frustration and pessimism that she was forced
to end her life. There can be no doubt that Manju was not
only a sensitive and sentimental woman but was extremely
impressionate and the letters show that a constant conflict
between her mind and body was going on and unfortunately the
circumstances which came into existence hastened her end.
People with such a psychotic philosophy or bent of mind
always dream of an ideal and if the said ideal fails, the
failure drives them to end their life, for they feel that no
charm is left in their life.
Mary K. Hinchliffe, Douglas Hooper and F. John Roberts
in their book 'The Melancholy Marriage' observe that-
"Studies of attempted suicides cases have also
revealed the high incidence of marital problems which
lie behind the act. In our own study of 100 consecutive
cases (Roberts and Hooper 1969), we found that most of
them could be understood if the patients interactions
with others in their environment were considered."
(P.5)
Such persons possess a peculiar psychology which
instils extreme love and devotion but when they are faced
with disappointment or find their environment so unhealthy
of unhappy, they seem to loose all the charms of life. The
authors while describing these sentiments observe thus :
"Hopelessness', 'despair', 'lousy, and 'miserable'
draw attention to the relationship of the depressed
person to his environment. The articulate depressed
person will often also struggle to put into words the
fact that not only does there appear to be no way
forward and thus no point to
121
life-but that the world actually looks different."
(P.7)
Coleridge in `Ode to Dejection' in his usual ironical
manner has very beautifully explained the sentiments of such
persons thus :
"I see them all so excellently fair-
I see, not feel, how beautiful they are ;"
At another place the author (Hinchliffe, Hooper & John)
come to the final conclusion that ruptured personal
relationship play a major part in the clinical picture and
in this connection observed thus :
"Initially we applied these ideas to study of
cases of attempted suicide (Roberts and Hooper 1969)
and although we did not assume that they were all
necessarily depressed, we looked for distal and
proximal causes for their behaviour and found that
ruptured personal relationships played a major part in
the clinical picture."
(P.50)
The observations of the authors aptly and directly
apply to the nature, mood and the circumstances of the
unfortunate life of Manju which came to an end within four
months of marriage.
We have pointed out these circumstances because the
High Court has laid very great stress on the fact that the
evidence led by the prosecution wholly and completely
excludes the possibility of suicides and the death of Manju
was nothing but a dastardly murder.
We shall now deal with the next limb of the oral dying
declaration said to have been made by the deceased to her
parents and friends. Some of the statements which have a
causal connection with the death of Manju or the
circumstances leading to her death are undoubtedly
admissible under s.32 of the Evidence Act as held by us but
other statements which do not bear any proximity with the
death or if at all very remotely and indirectly connected
with the death would not be admissible. Unfortunately,
however, the two kinds of statements are so inextricably
mixed up that it would
122
take a great effort in locating the part which is admissible
and the one which is not.
Before discussing the evidence of the witnesses we
might mention a few preliminary remarks against the
background of which the oral statements are to be
considered. All persons to whom the oral statements are said
to have been made by Manju when she visited Beed for the
last time, are close relatives and friends of the deceased.
In view of the close relationship and affection any person
in the position of the witness would naturally have a
tendency to exaggerate or add facts which may not have been
stated to them at all. Not that is done consciously but even
unconsciously the love and affection for the deceased would
create a psychological hatred against the supposed murderer
and, therefore, the court has to examine such evidence with
very great care and caution. Even if the witnesses were
speaking a part of the truth or perhaps the whole of it,
they would be guided by a spirit of revenge or nemesis
against the accused person and in this process certain facts
which may not or could not have been stated may be imagined
to have been stated unconsciously by the witnesses in order
to see that the offender is punished. This is human
psychology and no one can help it.
This now takes us to a consideration of the evidence of
the witnesses concerned which read together with the letters
form a composite chain of evidence regarding the causes or
the circumstance relating to the death of the deceased.
According to the prosecution, the last visit of Manju to
Beed was on 25.5.82 where she stayed till 3rd of June 1982
when she was brought back by the father of the appellant. In
other words, the narration of the troubles and tribulations
of Manju was made only during her last visit and not
earlier. These statements are alleged to have been made to
Rameshwar Chitlange (PW 2), Manju's father, Rekha (PW 3),
who was Manju's friend and referred to as `Vahini' in the
letter Ex.33, Anju (PW 6), Manju's sister to whom letters
(Exhs. 30 and 32) were written, and PW-20, Bai, the mother
of Manju. Meena Mahajan (PW 5) was also examined but we are
not in a position to rely on the evidence of this witness
for two reasons -(1) she does not figure anywhere in any of
the letters written by Manju, and (2) nothing was told to
her by Manju directly but she was merely informed regarding
the incidents mentioned by PW-2. This sort of indirect
evidence is not worthy of any credence.
123
We would first deal with the evidence of PW-2,
Rameshwar Chitlange (Manju's father). We shall give a
summary of the relevant part of his evidence because the
other parts relate to how the marriage was performed and the
spouses had gone for honeymoon which are not germane for our
purpose. The witness states that when Manju came to Beed
with her maternal uncle he found her somewhat uneasy and on
making enquiries whether she was happy at her husband's
house she told him that she was not very happy with her
husband since she noticed that her husband was not very much
pleased with her and in fact hated her. These facts are the
result of the usual domestic quarrels between a husband and
a wife, hence this statement cannot be said to be so
directly or proximately related to the death of Manju so as
to be admissible under s.32 of the Evidence Act.
It appears from his evidence that even after hearing
the narration from his daughter he advised her to get
herself adjusted to the situation and to the atmosphere of
her new marital home. Apart from being inadmissible this
does not appear to be of any assistance to the prosecution
in proving the case of murder alleged against the appellant.
The witness goes on to state that as the grandfather of the
accused had died he visited Pune, accompanied by his wife
and Manju. Since this was more or less a formal visit for
expressing his condolences to the bereaved family, he left
Manju at the house of the accused. The only part of his
evidence on which reliance was placed by the prosecution is
that he had noticed Manju very much disturbed and uneasy and
requested Birdichand (father of the accused) to allow him to
take Manju to the house of Dhanraj, which he did. On
reaching the house of Dhanraj, the witness states that Manju
completely broke down and started weeping and fell in the
grip of her mother. This state of Manju, which the witness
saw with his own eyes, would undoubtedly be primary evidence
of what he saw and felt though not in any way connected with
s. 32 of the Evidence Act. But from this circumstance alone
it cannot be safely inferred that Manju apprehended any
serious danger to her life from her husband.
The witness further states that he informed Birdichand
about the grievances made to him by Manju. The appellant,
Sharad, was sent for and he quietly listened to his father
but the witness felt that whatever Birdichand may have told
to his son that does not appear to have made any serious
impact on him (appellant) and he left the
124
room. This is purely an opinion evidence and therefore not
admissible. Even so, the accused perhaps did not think it
necessary to enter into arguments with his father-in-law in
the presence of his father and that is why he may have kept
quiet. From this no inference can be drawn that he was in
any way inimically disposed towards Manju or was animated by
a desire to take her life.
The witness further stated that he found that Manju was
weeping every now and then during the night at Dhanraj's
place. Later, in the morning the witness took Manju back to
her in-laws house but his grievance was that Sharad did not
care to meet or talk to them. These are however small
circumstances which are incidents of any married life and
from this no adverse inference can be drawn against the
appellant.
Another complaint made in the statement was that when
he made a voluntary offer to solve the difficulties of
Sharad, the appellant curtly told him that he did not want
to get his difficulties solved by other persons and at this
attitude of Sharad the witness was naturally very much
disappointed. This conduct of the accused also is not of
such an importance as to lead to any adverse inference. Some
persons who have a keen sense of pride and self-respect do
not like anyone else not even their father or father-in-law
to interfere in their personal matters. Perhaps this may be
the reason for the somewhat cool and curt attitude of Sharad
but that proves nothing. In fact, experience shows that
where elders try to intermeddle in the affairs of a husband
and his wife, this creates a serious obstruction in the
relations of the married couple. Nothing therefore, turns
upon this statement of PW 2.
Again, the witness repeats that when Manju came down to
see him off he noticed her weeping all the time. To cut a
long story short, the witness came back to Beed and sent his
son Pradeep to bring Manju from Pune to Beed. On reaching
there he was informed that Manju and Sharad had gone on a
holiday trip to Mysore, Triupati, etc. After the return of
Pradeep to Beed, Dhanraj informed the witness that Sharad
and Manju had returned to Pune and therefore, he sent his
son, Deepak to Pune to bring back Manju. When Manju arrived
at Beed, the witness found her totally disturbed and
frightened. This statement would be admissible as primary
evidence. What probative value should be attached to this
small matter is a different issue.
125
Thereafter, the witness was told the incidents by his
wife (PW 20) which had been narrated to her by Manju but
that is of no value so far as this witness is concerned as
the main evidence would be that of PW 20. However, in order
to save the marriage from a a total break-down the witness
was extremely worried and therefore, he called one Hira
Sarda, a close acquaintance of the family of accused, who
told him (witness) that he was going to Hyderabad and after
4th-5th June some solution would be found out. At the same
time, he advised the witness not to make any haste in
sending back Manju to Pune.
On the 2nd June 1982, Birdichand arrived at Beed and
requested the witness to send Manju to Pune because the
marriage of Birdichand's daughter was fixed for 30th June
1982 and the Kohl (betrothal) ceremony was to be held on the
13th of June so that Manju may be present at the ceremony
and look after the arrangements. The witness says that after
hearing this he apprised Birdichand that Manju was extremely
frightened and that she was not ready to go back to her
husband's house nor was he (witness) willing to send her
back so soon. He suggested to Birdichand that as the
marriage of his nephew was to be celebrated at Beed on 25th
June, Sharad would come to attend the marriage and at that
time he can take Manju with him. Birdichand, however,
persuaded the witness to send back Manju and assured him
that no harm of any kind would come to her and he also
promised that Manju would be sent back to Beed, The most
important statement in the evidence of this witness may be
extracted thus :
"I was having this talk with Birdichand on the
first floor of my house. Manju heard this from the
staircase, called me out in the ground portion of the
house and told me that she was not in a position to go
to the house of the accused. Since she was in a state
of fear or extreme fear in her mind and she also told
me that she was not prepared to go to the house of the
accused.
** ** **
Therefore, after the meals I sent Manju with
Birdichand. Birdichand, Manju and Kavita then left Beed
by about 12.30 p.m. by bus on 3rd of June, 82. At that
126
time Manju was constantly weeping right from inside my
house till the bus left. She was also in a state of
extreme fear."
(P. 197)
The witness has said many times in his statement that
Manju was always weeping and crying and the final crisis
came when on hearing the talks between him and Birdichand
she called him from the staircase and told him that she was
not prepared to go to her husband's house as she was in a
state of extreme fear. It is difficult to believe this part
of the evidence of the witness for two reasons-
(1) When the talks were going on between two elders
would Manju be sitting near the staircase to
listen their talks and call her father and give
vent to her feelings and her decision not to go
back to Pune at any cost. This conduct appears to
be directly opposed not only to the tenor and
spirit of the letters (Exhs. 30, 32 and 33) which
we have discussed but also against her mental
attitude and noble nature.
(2) As indicated by us while discussing the letters-
could a woman who was so affectionate and reserved
in nature and who would not like the contents of
her letters to Anju and Vahini to be disclosed to
her parents lest they feel worried, disturbed and
distressed-suddenly turn turtle, forgetting her
sentiments not to worry them and come out in the
open to declare before all by weeping and crying
that she was in a state of extreme fear, seem to
us to be inherently improbable. Once a mature
woman develops a particular nature or habit or a
special bent of mind she is not likely to forgo
her entire nature-in this case, her affection and
love for her parents and the feeling of not doing
anything which may cause distress or worry to
them, and start telling her woeful story to
everyone whom she met.
Manju must have known fully that her husband's sister's
127
betrothal ceremony was to be held on 13th June and if her
father-in-law was making request after request to take her
to Pune to attend the said ceremony, and had given all sorts
of assurances that no harm would come to her, would she
still call her father and express her state of fear and go
on repeating what she had already said. This seems to us to
be an afterthought or an embellishment introduced in the
evidence of the witness so as to add credence to the
prosecution story and provide an imaginary motive for the
murder of the deceased. Indeed, if she was bent on resisting
all attempts of her father-in-law to take her to Pune she
would not have gone at all. On the other hand, her
subsequent conduct of ultimately going to Pune and making
arrangements for the Kohl ceremony belies the story put
forward by the witness. It is extremely difficult for a
person to change a particular bent of mind or a trait of
human nature unless there are substantial and compelling
circumstances to do so. In the instant case, we find no such
compelling circumstance even taking the statement of the
witness at its face value.
To take the other side of the picture, the witness says
that when he reached Pune on 12.6.82 and visited the place
where Manju had died, he found Sharad sleeping or lying on
the cot and on seeing him he immediately started crying
vigorously and making a show of the grief and shock they had
received. The exact statement of the witness may be
extracted thus :
"I could notice that Sharad who was sleeping or
lying on the cot in the said room on seeing me entering
the room immediately started crying vigorously giving
jerks to his body and making show of the grief and the
shock he had received. Ultimately I asked him as to
what had happened to Manju when he told me that since
11th it was the day of his marriage with Manju, he and
Manju were in joyest mood. According to him they went
to bed by about 12 midnight and he had a sexual act
with Manju in such a manner which they never had
enjoyed before. Ultimately according to him when they
completely felt tired and exhausted both of them fell
asleep. According to him by about 5.30 a.m. when he got
up and after visiting the urinal, when returned to the
room he found that Manju had not got up as usual since
according to him, she used to wake up at the same time
he used to wake up and so he
128
went near Manju and called her out when he found her
dead."
It is rather strange that while the witness took
whatever his daughter told him at its face value without
making any further enquiry, he immediately jumped to the
conclusion that the grief and tears in the eyes of his son-
in-law were fake and that he was merely shedding crocodile
tears. There is nothing on the record nor in the evidence to
show any circumstance which may have led the witness to
arrive at this conclusion. On the other hand, if the conduct
of the appellant, as described by the witness, is seen from
a dispassionate angle, it was quite spontaneous and natural
because by the time the witness reached Pune the postmortem
had been done and the death of Manju had come to light long
before his arrival. There was no reason for the witness to
have presumed at that time that Sharad must have committed
the murder of the deceased. There were no materials or data
before him which could have led him to this inference. This
clearly shows one important fact, viz., that the witness was
extremely prejudiced against Sharad and if one sees
anything-even the truth-with a pale glass everything would
appear to him to be pale.
The second part of the statement made by the witness
regarding having sexual intercourse near about midnight
seems to us to be inherently improbable. However, educated
or advanced one may be, it is against our precious cultural
heritage for a person to utter such things in a most frank
and rudimentary fashion to his father-in-law. We are clearly
of the opinion that the story of having a sexual act, etc.,
was a pure figment of the imagination of the witness and
this, therefore, goes a long way off to detract from the
truth of the testimony of this witness.
Furthermore, at page 175 the witness admits that during
the life time of Manju, Anju and Rekha told him about the
receipt of the letters from Manju but they never referred to
the nature or the contents of the letters. This is a correct
statement because both Anju and Vahini had been requested by
Manju not to disclose to her parents the state of affairs or
the tortures which she was suffering and perhaps they kept
the sanctity of oath given to them by the deceased. This is
an additional circumstance to show that even when Manju
visited Beed for the last time she might tell something to
her own sister Anju or to Vahini but she would never dare
129
to disclose all the details and put all the cards on the
table before her parents-a step which she deliberately
desisted from coming into existence. We can understand the
evidence of the witness that Manju was worried, distressed
and depressed. Sometimes out of natural love and affection
parents make a mountain of a mole hill and this is what
seems to have happened in this case.
Great reliance was placed by the Additional Solicitor
General, on behalf of the respondent, on the relevance of
the statements of PWs 2, 3, 6, and 20. He attempted to use
their statements for twin purposes-firstly, as primary
evidence of what the witnesses saw with their own eyes and
felt the mental agony and the distress through which the
deceased was passing. Secondly, he relied on the statements
made by the deceased (Manju) to these witnesses about the
treatment meted out to her by her husband during her stay at
Pune and furnishes a clear motive for the accused to murder
her.
As regards the first circumstance, there can be no
doubt that the said evidence of the witnesses would
undoubtedly be admissible as revealing the state of mind of
the deceased. This would be primary evidence in the case
and, therefore, there cannot be any doubt about the
relevancy of the statement of the witnesses in regard to
this aspect of the matter. As to what probative value we
should attach to such statements would depend on a proper
application of the context and evidence of each of the
witnesses,
As regards the second aspect-which is in respect of
what the deceased told the witnesses-it would only be
admissible under s. 32 of the Evidence Act as relating to
the circumstances that led to the death of the deceased. In
view of the law discussed above and the propositions and the
conclusions we have reached, there cannot be any doubt that
these statements would fall in the second part of s.32 of
the Evidence Act relating directly to the transaction
resulting in the death of Manju, and would be admissible.
Before, however, examining this aspect of the question we
might at the outset state that the character, conduct and
the temperament of Manju, as disclosed or evinced by the
admitted letters (Exhs. 30,32 and 33), which demonstrate
that it is most unlikely, if not impossible, for Manju to
have related in detail the facts which the aforesaid
witnesses deposed. If this conclusion is correct, then no
reliance can be placed on this part of the statement of the
aforesaid witnesses.
We now proceed to discuss the evidence of PWs 3,4, 5, 6
and
130
20. As we have discussed the evidence of PW 2, father of
Manju, it will be more appropriate to discuss now the
evidence of PW-20 (Manju's mother) from whom most of the
matters spoken to by PW-2 were derived. Her evidence appears
at page 305 of part I of the Paper Book. It is not necessary
for us to go into those details which have already been
deposed to by PW-2. The most relevant part of her evidence
is about the visit of Manju to Beed on 2.4.82. She states
that during this visit she found Manju cheerful and happy
and she did not complain of anything during her stay for 8-
10 days. In answer to a question-whether she enquired from
Manju or had any talk with her during that period-she stated
Manju told her that her husband was not taking any interest
in her and used to leave the house early in the morning and
return late at night on the excuse that he was busy with his
factory work. It may be stated here that the accused had a
chemical factory where he used to work from morning till
late at night. The witness further deposed that Manju
informed her that there was no charm left for her at the
house of her husband. These facts however run counter to her
first statement where she stated that Manju was quite happy
and cheerful as expected of a newly married girl. Even so,
whatever Manju had said does not appear to be of any
consequence because she (the witness) herself admits that
she did not take it seriously and told Manju that since she
had entered a new family it might take some time for her to
acclimatise herself with the new surroundings. She also
warned Manju against attaching much importance to such
matters.
Thereafter she goes on to state that near about the
11th or 12th of April 1982 she (PW 20) alongwith her husband
left for Pune to offer condolences on the death of the
grand-father of the appellant. She then proceeds to state
that during their second visit to Pune on the 11th or 12th
of May 1982 she stayed with her brother, Dhanraj and that
while she was there Manju hugged at her neck and having lost
her control, started weeping profusely. She further states
that Manju requested her to take her to Beed as it was not
possible for her to stay in her marital house where she was
not only bored but was extremely afraid and scared.
On the next day she (PW 20) met the mother of the
appellant and told her plainly that she found Manju
extremely perturbed, uneasy and scared and that she was
experiencing tremendous pressure and restrictions from her
husband. But the mother of the appellant convinced her that
there was nothing to worry about,
131
and everything will be alright. The witness then narrated
the fact to her husband and requested him to take Manju with
them to Beed. PW 2 then sought the permission of Birdichand
to take Manju to. Beed but he told him that as some guests
were to visit him, he (PW 2) can send somebody after 4-5
days to take Manju to Beed. It may be mentioned here that
the details about the sufferings and the mental condition of
Manju was not mentioned by this witness even to her husband
(PW 2) as he does not say anything about this matter.
Further, her statement is frightfully vague.
As already indicated that the letters (Ex. 30, 32, 33)
clearly show that Manju never wanted to worry or bother her
parents about her disturbed condition, it appears to be most
unlikely that on the occasion of the death of her
grandfather-in-law she would choose that opportunity to
narrate her tale of woe to her mother. This appears to us to
be a clear embellishment introduced by the prosecution to
give a sentimental colour to the evidence of this witness.
Ultimately, on May 25, 1982 Deepak brought Manju to Beed and
this time she was accompanied by her cousin, Kavita. Here
again, she states that on her arrival she found Manju
extremely disturbed and under tension of fear and Manju was
prepared to make a clean breast of all her troubles.
However, as Kavita was there and did not give any
opportunity to Manju to meet her mother alone, she (Kavita)
was sent out on some pretext or the other. Thereafter, Manju
told her mother that she was receiving a very shabby
treatment from her husband and while narrating her miserable
plight she told her about two important incidents which had
greatly upset her-(1) that she happened to come across a
love letter written by PW 37, Ujwala Kothari to her husband
which showed that the appellant was carrying on illicit
relations with PW 37, (2) that on one occasion the appellant
told Manju that he was tired of his life and did not want to
live any more and, therefore-wanted to commit suicide.
Despite Manju's enquiries as to why he wanted to commit
suicide, he did not give any reason. She then informed her
mother when this talk was going on, she (Manju) herself
volunteered to commit suicide. Thereafter, Sharad put forth
a proposal under which both of them were to commit suicide
and they decided to write notes showing that they were
committing suicide. On hearing this plan from Sharad, Manju
told him that she was not inclined to commit suicide as she
had not lost all hope of life and that she had expressed her
desire to commit suicide only because he had said that he
would do so. PW 20 would have
132
us believe that while in one breath she agreed to the
suicide pact yet the next moment she made a complete volte
face. This is hard to believe having regard to the nature of
the temperament of Manju.
The two statements said have been made by Manju to her
mother appear to be contradictory and irreconcilable and
smack of concoction. According to Manju, Sharad then
prepared two notes one addressed to his father and another
to his father-in-law and asked Manju to do the same but she
refused to do anything of the sort. The witness admitted
that she was not told as to what had happened to the notes
written by the appellant.
All this story of a suicidal pact seems to us nothing
but a fairy tale. There is no mention nor even a hint in the
letters (Exhs. 30, 32, 33) written by Manju about the
aforesaid suicidal pact and the story narrated by the
witness before the trial court, nor was the note produced in
the court. This appears to us to be a make-believe story and
was introduced to castigate the appellant for his shabby
treatment towards Manju.
Another intrinsic circumstance to show the untruth of
this statement is that although PW 2 was apprised of these
facts yet he never mentioned them to Birdichand particularly
when he was insisting that Manju should be sent back to Pune
for attending the betrothal ceremony of his daughter Shobha.
Indeed, if this fact, which is of very great importance so
far as the lives of both the husband and the wife are
concerned, would have been there, the first thing which PW 2
would have done is to tell Birdihand that matters had
reached such a stage as to leave no doubt that her daughter
was in an instant fear of death and it was impossible for
him to allow his daughter to go to Pune where Sharad was
bent on forcing her to commit suicide or even murder her,
more particularly because PW 20 admits in her evidence that
as all the things she had learnt from Manju were serious,
she had informed her husband about the same who agreed with
her.
Apart from this grave incident, the witness deposed to
another equally important matter, viz., that on the Shila
Septami day, the appellant rang up his mother to send Manju
alongwith Shobha to a hotel (Pearl Hotel), as has been
deposed to by other witnesses) because he wanted to give a
party to his friends. As Shoba was not present in the house,
Manju's mother-in-law sent her alone, in
133
a rickshaw to the hotel. On reaching the hotel she did not
find any other person except a girl who was introduced by
her husband as Ujavla Kothari. The most critical part of the
incident is that the appellant is alleged to have informed
Manju that she should take lessons from Ujvala as to how she
should behave with him and also told her that Ujvala knew
everything about him and he was completely in her hands.
Subsequently the appellant went away and Ujvala told her
that the appellant was a short-tempered man and she should
talk to him only if and when he wanted to talk to her. She
(Ujvala) also told Manju that the appellant was completely
under her command and she was getting every bit of
information about the incidents happening between the
husband and the wife. Finally, she was apprised of the fact
by Ujvala that she and Sharad were in love with each other.
Manju is said to have retorted and protested to Ujvala by
saying that she was not prepared to take any lessons from
her regarding her behaviour towards her husband as she
(Manju) was his wedded wife while Ujvala was only a friend.
Manju also told her mother that these facts were narrated by
her to the appellant and accused No. 2. As a result of this
incident, Manju became a little erratic which attracted
double cruelty towards her by her husband and made her
extremely scared of her life and in view of this development
she requested her mother not to send her back to the house
of the accused.
One point of importance which might be noticed here and
which shows that whatever be the relations with her husband
and Ujvala, the picture presented by the witness is not
totally correct because if such a point of no return had
already been reached, there was absolutely no question of
Birdichand and sending for the appellant and arranging a
trip to Ooty, Mysore and other place nor would have Manju
agreed to go to these places. The witness further stated
that as soon as Manju came to know that Birdichand had come
to take her away she was shocked and continuously kept
saying that she was extremely afraid of going to her
husband's house and that she should not be sent back.
The behavioral attitude of Manju depicted by the
witness seems to us to be absolutely contradictory to and
not at all in consonance with her temperament, frame of
mind, psychological approach to things and innate habits.
That is why no reference had been made even directly or
indirectly in any of the letters written by
134
Manju, and she had expressly requested both Anju and Vahini
not to disclose anything to her parents lest they may get
worried and. distressed on her account. In other words,
Manju was a woman who despite her troubles and tribulations,
sufferings and travails, anxiety and anguish would never
have thought of narrating her woeful story to her parents
and thereby give an unexpected shock to them. This feeling
is mentioned in the clearest possible terms in the letters
(Exhs. 30, 32, 33) which we have already discussed. There is
no reference at all in any of the letters regarding suicidal
pact or the illicit relationship of her husband with Ujvala.
Another important fact which the High Court has missed
is that even according to the statement of this witness, the
appellant had asked his mother to send Shobha along with
Manju to the hotel and at that time he could not have been
aware that Shobha would not be available. Indeed, if he had
an evil intention of insulting or injuring the feelings of
Manju by keeping Ujvala there he would never have asked his
mother to send Shobha also because then the matter was
likely to be made public. This is another inherent
improbability which makes the whole story difficult to
believe.
Despite these serious developments both PW 2 and 20
tried to convince Manju to accept the assurances given by
Birdichand that no harm would come to her and if anything
might happen they will take proper care. We find if
impossible to believe that the parents who had so much love
and affection for their daughter would, after knowing the
circumstances, still try to take the side of Birdichand and
persuade her daughter to go to Pune. Rameshwar (PW 2) should
have told Birdichand point-blank that he would not send
Manju in view of the serious incidents that had happened,
viz., the suicidal pact, the cruel treatment of the
appellant towards Manju, the constant fear of death which
Manju was apprehending, the illicit relationship between the
appellant and Ujvala, and the strong resistance of his
daughter who was not prepared to go Pune at any cost and was
weeping and wailing all the time. On the other hand,
knowingly and deliberately they seem to have thrown their
beloved daughter into a well of death. The fact that Manju's
parents tried to console her and believed the assurance of
Birdichand knowing full well the history of the case shows
that any statement made by Manju to her parents was not of
such great consequence as to harden their attitude. This is
yet another intrinsic circumstance Manju to which negatives
the story of suicidal pact and the invitation to
135
come to the Pearl Hotel and the manner in which she was
insulted in the presence of Ujvala. There is no doubt that
relations between the appellant and Manju were extremely
strained, may-be due to his friendship with Ujvala, she may
not have felt happy in her marital home as she has clearly
expressed in her letters but she did not disclose anything
of such great consequence which would have shocked the
parents and led them to resist her going to Pune at any
cost. This makes the version given by PWs 2 and 20 unworthy
of credence.
We now proceed to take up the evidence of PW-6, Anju,
the sister of Manju. The statement of this witness is more
or less a carbon copy of the evidence of PW-20 which has
been discussed above and, therefore, it is not necessary to
consider her evidence in all its details. So far as the
first visit is concerned, she fully supports her mother that
Manju was very happy as was expected of a newly married
girl. When Manju came to Beed around 2nd April 1982 she
stayed there for 8-10 days and during that period the
witness noticed that she was somewhat dissatisfied and
complained that her husband used to return late at night.
She also complained against the callous attitude of the
other members of her husband's family. She also introduced
the story of Ujvala Kothari and corroborated what PW 20 had
said which we have discussed above. She also refers to the
said suicidal pact and then to the fact that Birdichand had
come to take away Manju to Pune so that she may be able to
attend the betrothal ceremony of Shobha. Then she deposes to
an incident which appears to be wholly improbable. According
to her, on the 3rd of June, 1982, PW 2 invited his two
friends, Raju and Rath, for lunch at which Birdichandi was
also present, and told them that Manju was not prepared to
go to Pune as she was afraid to go there but Birdichand,
alongwith his two friends, assured him that nothing would
happen. We do not think that in the course of things P-2
would be so foolish as to let the secret matters of the
house known to others than the parties concerned. Thereafter
the witness proves the letters (Exhs. 30 and 32).
She stated one important statement to the effect that
on some occasions Manju had a talk with her mother in her
presence. Although Manju had requested Anju not to disclose
anything to her parents yet everything was made known to
them, During cross-examination the witness was asked-how as
it that Manju was narrating these talks when the witness had
been asked not to disclose the
136
same to her parents, which she explained away by saying that
she did not ask Manju why she was disclosing these things to
her mother. No satisfactory answer to this question seems to
have been given by her. At another place, the witness states
thus :
"I did not tell all these informations I received
from Manju to any body. Nor anybody enquired from me
till my statement was recorded by the Police."
Her evidence, therefore, taken as a whole is subject to
the same infirmity as that of PW 20 and must suffer the same
fate.
PW-3, Rekha (who was addressed as `Vahini' in Maju's
letter (Ex. 33), states that on the first occasion when
Manju came home she was quite happy but during her second
visit to Beed in the month of April, 1982 she did not find
her so and Manju complained that her husband was avoiding
her to have a talk with her on one excuse or another. Manju
also informed the witness that the appellant had a girl-
friend by name Ujvala and the witness says that she tried to
console Manju by saying that since her husband was a
Chemical Engineer he may have lot of friends. While
referring to Exh. 33 (letter written to her by Manju) she
stated that the only complaint made in that letter was that
her husband was not talking to her properly. She then
deposed to an incident which happened when on her way to
Bombay when the witness stayed at Pune for some time. She
states that she had a talk with Manju for about half-an-hour
when she narrated the story of the suicidal pact. She also
stated that she was extremely afraid of the situation and
almost broke down in tears and wept.
The most important fact which may be noted in her
evidence is a clear pointer to the frame of mind and the
psychotic nature of Manju. At page 212 of Part I of the
Paperbook while narrating the relationship of her husband
with Ujvala she says that the appellant lost his temper and
thereupon she spoke the following words to him :
,`I am not going to spare this, I will not allow
this, his bad relations even though a blot may come to
our family and I have decided likewise."
These significant and pregnant words clearly show that
Manju was so much bored and disgusted with her life that she
entertained a spirit of revenge and told the witness that
she was not going to
137
tolerate this even though a blot may come to the family and
that she had decided likewise. This statement undoubtedly
contains a clear hint that she had almost made up her mind
to end her life, come what may and thereby put to trouble
her husband and his family members as being suspect after
her death. This appears to be a culmination of a feeling
which she had expressed in one of her letters to Anju in the
following words:
"Till I could control (myself), well and good.
When it becomes impossible, some other way will have to
be evolved. Let us see what happens. All right."
Similarly, in her letter (Ex. 33) to this witness she gives
a concealed hint "But till that day it is not certain that I
will be alive."
Thus the feelings of death and despair which she orally
expressed to the witness at Pune seems to have been
fulfilled when on the morning of 12th June 1982 she was
found dead.
The evidence of PW 4, Hiralal Ramlal Sarda, is not that
important. He merely states that in the last week of May
1982, PW 2 had called him and told him that Manju was being
ill-treated by her husband and therefore she was not
prepared to go to her marital home. PW 2 also informed him
about the suicidal pact affair. As the witness was in a
hurry to go to Hyderabad he counselled PW 2 not to take any
final decision in a hurry and that Manju should not be sent
to Pune with Birdichand until his return when a decision may
be taken. On return from Hyderabed he learnt that Birdichand
had already taken Manju to Pune and thereafter he left for
Pune. Indeed, if the matter was so grave and serious that a
person like PW 4, who was a relation of the appellant rather
than that of PW 2, had advised him not to make haste and
take a final decision but wait until his return yet PW 2
seems to have spurned his advice and sent Manju to Pune.
This shows that the matter was not really of such great
importance or urgency as to take the drastic step of making
a blunt refusal to Birdihchand about Manju's not going to
Pune. This also shows that the story of suicidal pact and
other things had been introduced in order to give a colour
or orientation to the prosecution story.
Another fact to which this witness deposes in the
narration by the appellant about his having sexual act with
his wife. We have
138
already disbelieved this story as being hopelessly
improbable and against the cultural heritage of our country
or of our nature and habits. This is the only purpose for
which this witness was examined and his evidence does not
advance the matter any further.
PW-5, Meena Mahajan, has also been examined to boost up
the story narrated by PW 2 and other witnesses. She was not
at all connected with the family of PW 2 but is alleged to
be a friend of Manju and she says that she found Manju
completely disheartened and morose and she started weeping
and crying while narrating her said story. The witness goes
on to state that Manju was so much terrified of the
appellant that she was afraid of her life at his hands. No.
witness has gone to the extent of saying that there was any
immediate danger to Manju's life nor did Manju say so to PWs
2, 6 and 20. This witness appears to us to be more loyal
than the king. Even assuming that Manju was a friend of PW 6
but she never wrote to her any letter indicating anything of
the sort. For these reasons we are not satisfied that this
witness is worthy of credence.
A close and careful scrutiny of the evidence of the
aforesaid witnesses clearly and conspicuously reveals a
story which is quite, different from the one spelt out from
the letters (Exhs. 30, 32 and 33). In fact, the letters have
a different tale to tell particularly in respect of the
following matters:-
(1) There is absolutely no reference to suicidal pact
or the circumstances leading to the same,
(2) there is no reference even to Ujvala and her
illicit relations with the appellant,
(3) there is no mention of the fact that the deceased
was not at all willing to go to Pune and that she
was sent by force,
(4) the complaints made in the letters are confined to
ill-treatment, loneliness, neglect and anger of
the husband but no apprehension has been expressed
in any of the letters that the deceased expected
imminent danger to her life from her husband.
(5) In fact, in the letters she had asked her sister
and friend not to disclose her sad plight to her
parents but
139
while narrating the facts to her parents she
herself violated the said emotional promise which
appears to us to be too good to be true and an
after thought added to strengthen the prosecution
case.
(6) If there is anything inherent in the letters it is
that because of her miserable existence and gross
ill-treatment by her husband, Manju might have
herself decided to end her life rather than bother
her parents.
We are therefore unable to agree with the High Court
and the trial court that the witnesses discussed above are
totally dependable so as to exclude the possibility of
suicide and that the only irresistible inference that can be
drawn from their evidence is that it was the appellant who
had murdered the deceased.
Putting all these pieces together a general picture of
the whole episode that emerges is that there is a reasonable
possibility of Manju having made up her mind to end her
life, either due to frustration or desperation or to take a
revenge on her husband for shattering her dream and ill-
treating her day-to-day.
Apart from the spirit of revenge which may have been
working in the mind of Manju, it seems to us that what may
have happened is that the sum total and the cumulative
effect of the circumstances may have instilled in her an
aggressive impulse endangered by frustration of which there
is ample evidence both in her letters and her subsequent
conduct. In Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice (Vol. 4) by
Sanford H. Kadish the author mentions thus :
"Other psychologically oriented theories ave
viewed suicide as a means of handling aggressive
impulses engendered by frustration."
Another inference that follows from the evidence of the
witness discussed is that the constant fact of wailing and
weeping is one of the important symptoms of an intention to
commit suicide as mentioned by George W. Brown and Tirril
Harris in their book "Social Origins of Depression" thus:-
"1. Symptom data
Depressed mood-
140
1. Crying
2. feeling miserable/looking miserable, unable to smile
or laugh
3. feelings of hopelessness about the future
4. suicidal thoughts
5. suicidal attempts
Fears/anxiety/worry
15. psychosomatic accompaniments
16. tenseness/anxiety
17. specific worry
18. panic attacks
19. phobias
Thinking
20. feelings of self-depreciation/nihilistic delusions
21. delusions or ideas of reference
22. delusions of persecution/jealousy
23. delusions of grandeur
24. delusions of control/influence
25. other delusions e. g. hypochondriacal worry
26. auditory hallucinations
27. visual hallucinations."
Most of these symptoms appear to have been proved as
existing in Manju both from her letters (Exhs. 30, 32 and
33) and from the evidence discussed.
We might hasten to observe here that in cases of women
of a sensitive and sentimental nature it has usually been
observed that if they are tired of their life due to the
action of their kith and kin, they become so desperate that
they develop a spirit of revenge and try to destroy those
who had made their lives worthless and under this strong
spell of revenge sometimes they can go to the extreme limit
of committing suicide with a feeling that the subject who is
the root cause of their malady is also destroyed. This is
what may have happened in this case. Having found her dreams
shattered to pieces Manju tried first to do her best for a
compromise but the constant ill-treatment and callous
attitude of her husband may have driven
141
her to take revenge by killing herself so that she brings
ruination and destruction to the family which was
responsible for bringing about her death. We might extract
what Robert J. Kastenbaum in his book 'Death, Society, and
Human Experience' has to say:
"Revenge fantasies and their association with suicide
are well known to people who give ear to those in
emotional distress."
After a careful consideration and discussion of the evidence
we reach the following conclusions on point No. 1:
1) that soon after the marriage the relations between
Manju and her husband became extremely strained and
went to the extent that no point of return had been
almost reached,
2) that it has been proved to some extent that the
appellant had some sort of intimacy with Ujvala which
embittered the relationship between Manju and him,
3) That the story given out by PW 2 and supported by PW
20 that when they reached Pune after the death of Manju
they found appellant's weeping and wailing out of grief
as this was merely a pretext for shedding of crocodile
tears, cannot be believed,
4) that the story of suicidal pact and the allegation
that appellant's illicit relations with Ujvala
developed to such an extreme that he was so much
infatuated with Ujvala as to form the bedrock of the
motive of the murder of Manju, has not been clearly
proved,
5) the statement of PW 2 that the appellant had told
him that during the night on 11th June 1982 he had
sexual act with the deceased is too good to be true and
is not believable as it is inherently improbable,
6) that despite the evidence of PWs 2, 3, 6 and 20 if
has not been proved to our satisfaction that the matter
had assumed such extreme proportions that Manju refused
to go to Pune with her father-in-law (Birdichand) at
any cost and yet she was driven by use of compulsion
and persuasion to accompany him,
142
7) that the combined reading and effect of the letters
(Exhs. 30, 32 and 33) and the evidence of PWs 2, 3, 4,
6 and 20 clearly reveal that the signs and symptoms
resulting from the dirty atmosphere and the hostile
surroundings in which Manju was placed is a pointer to
the fact that there was a reasonable possibility of her
having committed suicide and the prosecution has not
been able to exclude or eliminate this possibility
beyond reasonable doubt.
We must hasten to add that we do not suggest that this
was not a case of murder at all but would only go to the
extent of holding that at least the possibility of suicide
as alleged by the defence may be there and cannot be said to
be illusory.
8) That a good part of the evidence discussed above, is
undoubtedly admissible as held by us but its probative
value seems to be precious little in view of the
several improbabilities pointed out by us while
discussing the evidence.
We might mention here that we had to reappreciate the
evidence of the witnesses and the circumstances taking into
account the psychological aspect of suicide as found in the
psychotic nature and character of Manju because these are
important facts which the High Court completely overlocked.
It seems to us that the High Court while appreciating the
evidence was greatly influenced by the fact that the
evidence furnished by the contents of the letters were not
admissible in evidence which, as we have shown, is a wrong
view of law,
We now come to the second limb- perhaps one of the most
important limbs of the prosecution case viz., the
circumstance that the appellant was last seen with the
deceased before her death. Apparently, if proved, this
appears to be a conclusive evidence against the appellant
but here also the High Court has completely ignored certain
essential details which cast considerable doubt on the
evidence led by the prosecution on this point.
The question of the appellant having been last seen
with the deceased may be divided into three different
stages:
1) The arrival of Anuradha and her children alongwith
Manju at Takshila apartments, followed by the arrival
of
143
the appellant and his entry into his bedroom where
Anuradha was talking to Manju,
2) the calling of PW 29 by A-2 followed by the
appellant and his brother's going out on a scooter to
get Dr. Lodha and thereafter Dr. Gandhi.
3) Sending for Mohan Asava (PW 30) and the conversation
between the appellant, Birdichand and others as a
result of which the matter was reported to the police.
Although the aforesaid three stages of this
circumstance cannot technically be called to mean that the
accused was last seen with the deceased but the three parts
combined with the first circumstance might constitute a
motive for the murder attributed to the appellant.
From a perusal of the judgment of the High Court on
these points, it appears that the High Court has made a
computerise and mathematical approach to the problem in
fixing the exact time of the various events which cannot be
correct as would appear from the evidence of the witnesses,
including Dr Banerjee (PW 33) .
The evidence of PW 7, the motor rickshaw driver shows
that on the night of the 11th of June he had brought the
deceased alongwith Anuradha and others and dropped them near
the Takshila apartments at about 11.00 p.m. The witness was
cross-examined on several points but we shall accept finding
of the High Court on the fact that on the 11th of June 1982
the witness had dropped the persons, mentioned above, at
about 11.00 p.m. The rest of the evidence is not germane for
the purpose of this case. It may, however, be mentioned that
one should always give some room for a difference of a few
minutes in the time that a layman-like PW 7 would say. We
cannot assume that when the witness stated that he had
dropped Manju and others at 11.00 p.m., it was exactly 11.00
p.m.--it would have been 10-15 minutes this way or that way.
His evidence is only material to show the approximate time
when Manju returned to the apartments.
The next witness on this point is PW-28, K.N. Kadu.
This witness corroborates PW-7 and stated he had heard the
sound of a rickshaw near the apartments when the wife of A-
2, Manju and 3 children entered the apartments and went to
their rooms. He
144
further says that after about 15 minutes he saw the
appellant coming on a scooter and while he was parking his
scooter the witness asked him why did he come so late to
which he replied that he was busy in some meeting. This
would show that the appellant must have arrived at the
apartments near about 11.30 or 11.45 p.m. It is very
difficult to fix the exact time because the witness himself
says that he had given the timings approximately. The High
Court was, therefore, not justified in fixing the time of
arrival of Manju and party or the appellant with almost
mathematical precision for that would be a most unrealistic
approach. The High Court seems to have speculated that Manju
must have died at 12.00 a.m., that is to say, within 15-20
minutes of the arrival of the appellant. It is, however,
impossible for us to determine the exact time as to when
Manju died because even Dr. Banerjee says in his evidence
that the time of death of the deceased was between 18 to 36
hours which takes us to even beyond past 12 in the night. At
any rate, this much is certain that Manju must have died
round about to 2.00 a.m. because when Dr. Lodha arrived at
2.45 a.m. he found her dead and he had also stated that
rigor mortis had started setting in, It is. therefore,
difficult to fix the exact time as if every witness had a
watch which gave correct and exact time. Such an inference
is not at all called for.
The third stage of this matter is that while the
witness was sleeping he heared the sound of the starting of
a scooter and got up from his bed and saw appellant and A-2
going away. Therefore, he found 7-8 persons coming and going
on their scooters. The High Court seems to suggest that this
must have happened by about 1.30 p.m. Even so, this does not
prove that Manju have died at midnight. As the witness had
been sleeping and was only aroused by the sound of scooters,
it would be difficult to fix the exact time when he saw the
appellant and A-2 going out on their scooters. His evidence,
therefore, was rightly relied upon by the High Court in
proving the facts stated by him.
PW-29, B.K. Kadu, who was serving as a watchman at the
Takshila apartments says that near about the midnight he was
called by Rameshwar, A-2 and on hearing the shouts he went
to flat No. 5. He further says that A-2 directed him to
unbolt or unchain the door but the door was not found closed
from inside and hence A-2 went out and returned after some
time. While the witness was
145
standing at the door A-2 returned and after his return the
witness also came back to his house and went to sleep.
Perhaps the witness was referring to the incident when A-1
and A-2 had gone on scooter to fetch Dr. Lodha. During
cross-examination the witness admitted that he did not
possess any watch and gave the timings only approximately.
We shall accept his evidence in toto but that leads us
nowhere.
This is all the evidence so far as the first stage of
the case is concerned and, in all probability, it does not
at all prove that A-1 had murdered the deceased. On the
other hand, the circumstances proved by the three witness
are not inconsistent with the defence plea that soon after
entering the room Manju may have committed suicide.
Part II of this circumstance relates to the coming of
Dr. Lodha and then Dr. Gandhi on the scene of occurrence and
we accept their evidence in toto. Dr. Lodha was a family
doctor of the appellant's family and it was quite natural to
send for him when the appellant suspected that his wife was
dead. Although Dr. Lodha (PW 24) was a family doctor of the
appellant's family yet he did not try to support the defence
case and was frank enough to tell the accused and those who
were present there that it was not possible for him to
ascertain the cause of death which could only be done by a
postmortem. In other words, he indirectly suggested that
Manju's death was an unnatural one, and in order to get a
second opinion he advised that Dr. Gandhi (PW 25) may also
be summoned. Accordingly, Dr. Gandhi was called and he
endorsed the opinion of Dr. Lodha. Such a conduct on the
part of the appellant or the persons belonging to his family
is wholly inconsistent with the allegation of the
prosecution that the appellant had murdered the deceased.
The High Court seems to have made one important comment
in that why Dr. Lodha and Dr. Gandhi were called from some
distance when Dr. Kelkar, who was a skin specialist and
another Doctor who was a child expert, were living in the
same building. This comment is neither here nor there. It is
manifest that Birdichand was a respectable person of the
town and when he found that his daughter-in-law had died he
would naturally send for his family doctor rather then those
who were not known to him.
146
It appears that PW 30 Mohan Asava was also summoned on
telephone and when he came at the scene of occurrence he
found A-2, Birdichand sitting on the floor of the room and
Bridichand hugged him out of grief, and told him that Manju
had died of shock and the Doctors were not prepared to give
a death certificate.
In order to understand the evidence of this witness it
may be necessary to determine the sequence of events so for
as PW 30 is concerned. The witness has stated that while he
was sleeping he was aroused from his sleep by a knock at the
door by Ram Vilas Sharda (brother of appellant) at about
4.00 or 4.15 a.m. Ram Vilas told him that Manju had died and
the doctors were not prepared to give any death certificate.
After having these talks the witness, alongwith Ram Vilas,
proceeded to the apartments and remained there till 5.15.
a.m. Then he returned to his house, took bath and at about
6.30 a.m. he received a telephone call from Ram Vilas for
lodging a report with the police with the request that the
time of death should be given as 5.30 a.m. Consequently, he
reached the police station near about 7.00 or 7.15 a.m. and
lodged a report stating that Manju had died at 5.30 a.m.
This witness appears to be of doubtful antecedents and,
therefore, his evidence has to be taken with a grain of
salt. He admitted in his statement at p. 387 that some
proceedings about evasion of octroi duty were pending
against him in the Court. He also admitted that he was
convicted and sentenced to 9 months R.I under the Food
Adulteration Act in the year 1973.
Apart from this it appears that most of the statements
which he made in the Court against Birdichand and the other
accused, were not made by him before the police. These
statements were put to him and he denied the same but they
have been proved by the Investigation Officer, PW 40 whose
evidence appears at p. 521 of Part II of the printed
paperbook. These belated statements made in the Court may be
summarised thus:
While in his statement before the court the witness at
p. 386 (para 19) states that the death of Manju was
suspicious yet he made no such statement before the police
on being confronted by the statement of PW 40. Another
important point on which his statement does not appear to be
true is that the dominent fact
147
mentioned to him by Birdichahd and others was that the
doctors were not prepared to issue death certificate but he
did not say so before the police. Similarly, he deposed in
the court about the statement made to him by Birdichand that
he would lose his prestige and therefore the body should be
cremated before 7.00 a.m, but he advised him not to do so
unless he has informed the police otherwise his whole family
would be in trouble. Almost the entire part of his evidence
in para 5 at p. 381 appears to be an afterthought, as PW 40
stated thus:
"I recorded the statement of PW 30 Mohan Asava. He
did not state before me that death of Manju was
suspicious. He did not state before me that Accused No.
3 informed him that the Doctors were not prepared to
issue the death certificate. He did not state before me
that the demand was made of the death certificate from
the Doctors or the Doctors refused to give the same.
During his statement this witness did not make the
statements as per para No. 5 excluding the portions
from A to F of his examination-in-chief."
The portions referred to as 'A to F' in para No. 5 of
examination-in-chief of PW 30 may be extracted thus:
"Birdichand then started telling me that Manju had
died on account of shock and that-----he said that she
died of heart attack------under any circumstance he
wanted to cremate Manju before 7.O' clock------when he
said that he would spend any amount but wanted to
cremate her before 7.00 a.m."
This statement does not appear to be true for the
following reasons.
(a) Birdichand knew full well that PW 30 was a police
contact constable and as he was not prepared to
persuade the doctors to give a death certificate,
his attitude was hardly friendly as he was
insisting that the matter should be reported to
the police.
It is, therefore, difficult to believe that
Birdichand would take such a great risk in laying
all his cards on the table knowing full well that
the witness was not
148
so friendly as he thought and therefore he might
inform the police; thereby he would be in a way
digging his own grave.
(b) On a parity of reasoning it would have been most
improbable on the part of the appellant, after
having decided to report the matter to the police,
to ask PW 30 to report the time of death as 5.30
a.m. knowing full well his attitude when he came
to the apartments.
It is not at all understandable how the witness could
have mentioned the time of Manju's death as 5.30 a.m. or, at
any rate, when her death was known to her husband and when
he himself having gone to the apartments near about 4.15
a.m. knew full well that Manju had died earlier and that Dr.
Lodha and Dr. Gandhi had certified the same and advised
Birdichand to report the matter to the police. In the
original Ex-120 (in Marathi language), it appears that the
time of death given by the witness is 'Pahate' which,
according to Molesworth's Marathi-English Dictionary at p.
497, means 'The period of six ghatika before unrise, the
dawn' i. e., about 2 hours 24 minutes before sunrise (one
ghatika is equal to 24 minutes). This would take us to near
about 3.00 a.m. Either there is some confusion in the
translation of the word 'Pahate' or in the words '5.30
a.m.', as mentioned in the original Ex. 120. However,
nothing much turns on this except that according to the
witness Manju must have died around 3.00 a.m. which is
consistent with the evidence of Dr. Lodha that when he
examined Manju at about 2.30 a.m. he found her dead and
rigor mortis had already started setting in.
We are not concerned here with the controversy whether
the report was admissible under s. 154 or s. 174 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure but the fact remains that the policd
did receive the information that the death took place at
5.30 a.m. The High Court seems to have made a capital out of
this small incident and has not made a realistic approach to
the problem faced by Birdichand and his family. Being a
respectable man of the town, Birdichand did not want to act
in a hurry lest his reputation may suffer and naturally
required some time to reflect and consult his friends before
taking any action. The allegation that A-3 told him to
report the time of death as 5.30 a.m. is not at all proved
but is based on the
149
statement of PW 30, before the police. Thus, the approach
made by the High Court to this aspect of the matter appears
to be artificial and unrealistic as it failed to realise
that the question of the time of death of the deceased as
5.30 a.m. could never have been given by the appellant or
any other accused because they knew full well that the two
doctors had examined the whole matter and given the time of
death as being round about 1.30 a.m. Having known all these
facts how could anyone ask PW 30 to give the time of death
at the police station as 5.30 a.m.
Thus, it will be difficult for us to rely on the
evidence of such a witness who had gone to the extent of
making wrong statements and trying to appease both
Birdichand and the prosecution, and, therefore, his evidence
does not inspire any confidence.
The last part of the case on this point is the evidence
of PWs 2 and 4, where the appellant is said to have told
them that he had sexual intercourse with his wife near about
5.00 a.m. on the 12th June 1982. Apart from the inherent
improbability in the statement of the appellant, there is
one other circumstance which almost clinches the issue. It
appears that Kalghatgi (PW 20), Inspector-in-charge of the
police station made a query from Dr. Banerjee which is
extracted below:
Whether it can be said definitely or not as to
whether sexual intercourse might have taken just prior
to death ?"
The above query was made in Ex. 129 and the answer of
the Doctor appears in Ex. 187 which is extracted below:
"From clinical examination there was no positive
evidence of having any recent sexual, intercourse just
prior to death."
This positive finding of the Doctor therefore knocks
the bottom out of the case made out by the prosecution tion
that the appellant had told PWs 2 and 4 about having sexual
intercourse with his wife. Unfortunately, however, the High
Court instead of giving the benefit of this important
circumstance to the accused has given the benefit to the
prosecution which is yet another error in the approach made
by the Eight Court while assessing the prosecution evidence.
Having regard to the very short margin of time between the
arrival of the appellant in his bed-room and the death of
Manju, it seems
150
to be well-nigh impossible to believe that he would try to
have sexual intercourse with her. This circumstance,
therefore, falsifies the evidence of PWs 2 and 4 on this
point and shows the extent to which the witnesses could go
to implicate the appellant.
Finally, in view of the disturbed nature of the state
of mind of Birdichand and the catastrophe faced by him and
his family, it is difficult to believe that the grief
expressed and the tears shed by the appellant when PW 2 met
him could be characterised as fake. If it is assumed that
the accused did not commit the murder of the deceased then
the weeping and wailing and expressing his grief to PW 2
would be quite natural and not fake.
There are other minor details which have been
considered by the High Court but they do not appear to us to
be very material.
Taking an overall picture on this part of the
prosecution case the position seems to be as follows:
(1) if the accused wanted to give poison while Manju
was wide awake, she would have put up stiffest
possible resistance as any other person in her
position would have done. Dr. Banerjee in his
postmortem report has not found any mark of
violence or resistance. Even if she was
overpowered by the appellant she would have
shouted and cried and attracted persons from the
neighbouring flats which would have been a great
risk having regard to the fact that some of the
inmates of the house had come only a short-while
before the appellant.
(2) Another possibility which cannot be ruled out is
that potassium cyanide may have been given to
Manju in a glass of water, if she happened to ask
for it. But if this was so, she being a chemist
herself would have at once suspected some foul
play and once her suspicion would have arisen it
would be very difficult for the appellant to
murder her.
(3) The third possibility is that as Manju had
returned pretty late to the flat she went to sleep
even before the arrival of the appellant and then
he must have tried to
151
forcibly administer the poison by the process of
mechanical suffocation, in which case alone the
deceased could not have been in a position to
offer any resistance. But this opinion of the
Doctor has not been accepted by the High Court
which, after a very elaborate consideration and
discussion of the evidence, the circumstances and
the medical authorities, found that the opinion of
the Doctor that Manju died by mechanical
suffocation has not been proved or, at any rate,
it is not safe to rely on such evidence. In this
connection, we might refer to the finding of fact
arrived at by the High Court on this point:
"In view of the above position as is available
from the evidence of Dr. Banerjee and from the
observations made by the medical authorities it will
not be possible to say that the existence of the dark
red blood in the right ventricle exclusively points out
the mechanical suffocation particularly when such
phenomenon is available in cases of poisoning by
potassium cyanide." (PB p. 147-48)
"In view of this answer it will not be possible to
say conclusively that this particular symptom of
observation is exclusively available in case of
mechanical suffocation.
Thus we have discussed all the seven items on
which Dr. Banerjee has relied for the purpose of giving
an opinion that there was mechanical suffocation. In
our view, therefore, those 7 findings would not
constitute conclusive date for the purpose of holding
that there was mechanical suffocation. As the 7
findings mentioned above can be available even in the
case of cyanide poisoning we think that it would not be
safe to rely upon these circumstances for recording an
affirmative finding that there was mechanical
suffocation. As the 7 findings mentioned above can be
available even in the case of cyanide poisoning we
think that it would not be safe to rely upon these
circumstances for recording an affirmative finding that
there was mechanical suffocation."
(P.150-151)
It is not necessary for us to repeat the circumstances
relied upon by the High Court because the finding of fact
speaks for itself.
152
This being the position, the possibility of mechanical
suffocation is completely excluded.
(4) The other possibility that may be thought of is
that Manju died a natural death. This also is
eliminated in view of the report of the Chemical
Examiner as confirmed by the postmortem that the
deceased had died as a result of administration of
potassium cyanide.
(5) The only other reasonable possibility that remains
is that as the deceased was fed up with the
maltreatment by her husband, in a combined spirit
of revenge and hostility after entering the flat
she herself took potassium cyanide and lay limp
and lifeless. When the appellant entered the room
he must have thought that as she was sleeping she
need not be disturbed but when he found that there
was no movement in the body after an hour so, his
suspicion was roused and therefore he called his
brother from adjacent flat to send for Dr. Lodha.
In these circumstances, it cannot be said that a
reasonable possibility of the deceased having committed
suicide, as alleged by the defence, can be safely ruled out
or eliminated.
From a review of the circumstances mentioned above, we
are of the opinion that the circumstance of the appellant
having been last seen with the deceased has not been proved
conclusively so as to raise an irresistible inference that
Manju's death was a case of blatant homicide.
This now brings us to an important chapter of the case
on which great reliance appears to have been placed by Mr.
Jethmalani on behalf of the appellant. Unfortunately,
however, the aspect relating to interpolations in the
postmortem report has been completely glossed over by the
High Court which has not attached any importance to the
infirmity appearing in the medical evidence in support of
the said interpolations. Although the learned counsel for
the appellant drew our attention to a number of
interpolations in the postmortem report as also the report
sent to the Chemical Examiner, we are impressed only with
two infirmities which merit
153
serious consideration. To begin with, it has been pointed
out that in the original postmortem notes which were sent to
Dr. Banerjee (PW 33) for his opinion, there is a clear
interpolation by which the words `can be a case of suicidal
death' appear to have been scored out and Dr. Banerjee
explained that since he had written the words `time since
death' twice, therefore, the subsequent writing had been
scored out by him. In other words, the Doctor clearly
admitted the scoring out of the subsequent portion and we
have to examine whether the explanation given by him is
correct. In order to decide this issue we have examined for
ourselves the original postmortem notes (Ex. 128) where the
writing has been admittedly scored out by Dr. Banerjee. The
relevant column against which the scoring has been done is
column. No. 5 which runs thus:
"5. Substance of accompanying Report from Police
officer or Magistrate, together with the date of death,
if known. Supposed cause of death, or reason for
examination."
The last line indicates that the Doctor was to note two
things-(1) the date of death, if known, and (2) the supposed
cause of death. This document appears to have been written
by PW 33 on 12.6.82 at 4.30 p.m. The relevant portion of the
words written by the Doctor are `time since dealt' which
were repeated as he states in his statement. After these
words some other words have been admittedly scored out and
his (PW 33) explanation was that since he had written `time
since death' twice, the second line being a repetition was
scored out. A bare look at Ex. 128 does not show that the
explanation given by the Doctor is correct. We have
ourselves examined the said words with the help of a
magnifying glass and find that the scored words could not
have been `time since death'. The only word common between
the line scored out and the line left intact is `death'. To
us, the scored out words seem to be `can be a case of
suicidal death'. Dr Banerjee however stuck to his original
stand which is not supported by his own writing in the
document itself. It seems' to us that at the first flush
when he wrote the postmortem notes it appeared to him that
no abnormality was detected and that it appears to be a case
of suicide rather than that of homicide. This, therefore, if
the strongest possible circumstance to make the defence
highly probable, if not certain. Furthermore, the Doctors's
explanation that the scored words were "time since death",
according to the said explanation, the scored words ore only
three whereas
154
the portion scored out contains as many as seven words.
Hence the explanation of the Doctor is not borne out from
the document.
It is true that the Doctor reserved his opinion until
the chemical examiner's report but that does not answer the
question because in column No.5 of postmortem note Dr.
Banerjee has clearly written "can be a case of suicidal
death" which indicates a that in the absence of the report
of the chemical examiner, he was of the opinion that it
could have been a case of suicide. In his evidence, PW 33
stated that in Exh. 128 in column No. 5 the contents scored
out read `time since death' and since it was repeated in
the next line, he scored the words in the second line.
Despite persistent cross-examination the Doctor appears to
have stuck to his stand. It cannot, therefore, be gainsaid
that this matter was of vital importance and we expected the
High Court to have given serious attention to this aspect
which goes in favour of the accused.
Another interpolation pointed out by the learned
counsel is regarding position of tongue as mentioned in Exh.
134. In the original while filling up the said column the
Doctor appears to have scored out something; the filled up
entry appears thus-`mouth is closed with tip (something
scored out) seen caught between the teeth'. But in the
carbon copy of the report which was sent to the Chemical
Examiner (Exh. 132) he has added `caught between the teeth'
in ink but in the original there is something else. This is
fortified by the fact that the copy of the report actually
sent to the chemical examiner does not contain any
interpolation against the said column where the filled up
entry reads `Inside mouth'.
The combined effect of these circumstances show that
Dr. Banerjee (PW33) tried to introduce some additional facts
regarding the position of the tongue. Perhaps this may be
due to his final opinion that the deceased died due to
mechanical suffocation which might lead to the tongue being
pressed between the teeth. This, however, throws a cloud of
doubt on the correctness or otherwise of the actual reports
written by him and the one that was sent to the Chemical
Examiner. It is obvious that in the carbon copy which was
retained by the Doctor, the entries must have been made
after the copy was sent to the Chemical Examiner. However,
this circumstance is not of much consequence because the
opinion of the Doctor that Manju died by forcible
administration of potassium cyanide or by the process of
mechanical suffocation has not been proved.
155
This aspect need not detain us any further because the High
Court has not accepted the case of mechanical suffocation.
So far as the other findings of Dr. Banerjee are
concerned we fully agree with the same. A number of comments
were made on behalf of the appellant about Dr. Banerjee's
integrity and incorrect reports but subject to what we said,
we do not find any substance in those contentions.
In para 90 of its judgment the High Court has given a
number of circumstances which according to it, go to prove
the prosecution case showing that the appellant had
administered the poison during the night of 11th June, 1982.
These circumstances may be extracted thus:
(1) In the bed-room Manju died of poisoning between
11.30 p.m. and 1. a.m. in the night between
11/12th June, 1982.
(2) Accused No. 1 was present in that bed room since
before the death of Manju i.e. since about 11.15
p.m.
(3) Accused No, 1 did not return to the flat at 1.30
a.m or 1.45 a.m. as alleged.
(4) The conduct of accused No. 1 in not calling for
the immediate help of Dr. Shrikant Kelkar and/or
Mrs. Anjali Kelkar is inconsistent with his
defence that he felt suspicious of the health of
Manju when he allegedly returned to the flat at
1.30 a.m.
(5) In different conduct of accused No. 1 when Dr.
Lodha and Dr. Gandhi went to the flat in Takshila
apartment, Accused No. 1 did not show any anxiety
which one normally finds when the doctor comes to
examine the patient. Accused No. 1 should have
accompanied the doctors when they examined Manju
and should have expressly or by his behaviour
disclosed his feelings about the well being of his
wife. It was also necessary for him to disclose
the alleged fact that he saw Manju in a suspicious
condition when he returned at about 1.30 a.m. Or
so.
(6) An attempt of Birdichand to get the cremation of
Manju done before 7 a. m. On 12. 6 82 even by
spending any amount for that purpose. This conduct
though
156
of Birdichand shows the conduct of a person to
whom Accused No. 1 had gone and informed as to
what had happened.
(7) Delay and false information to police at the hands
of Mohan Asava. Though the information is given by
Mohan as per the phone instructions of accused No.
3 it is, presumed that accused No. 1 must have
told accused No. 3 about the incident and on that
basis accused No.3 gave instructions to Mohan
Asava.
(8) Accused No. 1 himself does not take any action
either personally or through somebody else to give
correct information to police.
(9) Arrangement of the dead body to make show that
Manju died a peaceful and natural death.
(10) Accused No. 1 has a motive to kill Manju as he
wanted to get rid of her to continue relations
with Ujvala.
(11) Absence of an anklet on left ankle of Manju is
inconsistent with the defence that Manju committed
suicide.
(12) The conduct of the accused in concealing the
anklet in the fold of the Chaddar is a Conduct of
a guilty man.
(13) The door of the bedroom was not found bolted from
inside. This would have been normally done by
Manju if she had committed suicide.
(14) Potassium cyanide must not have been available to
Manju.
(15) Manju was 4 to 6 weeks pregnant. This is a
circumstance which would normally dissuade her
from committing suicide.
(16) Denial of the part of accused No. 1 of admitted or
proved facts.
(17) Raising a false plea of absence from the bedroom
at the relevant time. (PP. 152-155)
157
We have already discussed most of the circumstances
extracted above and given our opinion, and have also fully
explained the effect of circumstances Nos. 1,2,3,4,5 and 6.
We might again even at the risk of repetition say that too
much reliance seems to have been placed by the High Court on
circumstance No. 4 as the appellant did not immediately call
for Dr. Shrikant Kelkar (PW 26) and Dr. (Mrs.) Anjali Kelkar
(PW 27). In a matter of this magnitude it would be quite
natural for the members of the appellant's family to send
for their own family doctor who was fully conversant with
the ailment of every member of the family. In these
circumstances there was nothing wrong if the appellant and
his brother went to a distance of 11/2 Km. to get Dr. Lodha.
Secondly, Dr. Shrikant Kelkar was skin specialist whereas
Dr. (Mrs) Anjali Kelkar was a Paediatrician and the
appellant may have genuinely believed that as they belonged
to different branches, they were not all suitable to deal
with such a serious case. The High Court was, therefore,
wrong in treating this circumstance as an incriminating
conduct of the appellant.
Circumstance No. 5 is purely conjectural because as
soon as Dr. Lodha came he examined Manju and advised that
Dr. Gandhi be called. We fail to understand what was the
indifferent conduct of the appellant when he had sent for
the two Doctors who examined the deceased. The appellant was
in the same room or rather in an adjacent room when the
deceased was being examined. From this no inference can be
drawn that the appellant was indifferent to the state in
which Manju was found.
As regards circumstance No. 6 we have already explained
this while dealing with the evidence of Mohan Asava, PW 30.
As regards circumstance No. 7, the High Court has presumed
that there being no dependable evidence that the information
given to the police by PW 30 was false and that the
appellant must have told A-3 about the incident on the basis
of which he gave instructions to PW 30. This is also far
from the truth as has been pointed out by us while dealing
with the evidence of PW 30.
Circumstance No. 8 is that PW 30 was asked to report
the matter to the police. When the dead body was lying in
the flat what action could the appellant have taken except
reporting the matter to the police through one of his known
persons. So far as
158
circumstances Nos. 9 and 10 are concerned, they do not
appear to us to be of any consequence because, as shown by
us, from a reading of the letters (Exhs. 30,32 and 33) and
the conduct of the appellant, we do not find any evidence of
a clear motive on the part of the appellant to kill Manju.
Circumstances Nos. 11 and 12 are also of no assistance
to the prosecution because whether the anklet was in the
chaddar or elsewhere is wholly insignificant and does not
affect the issue in question at all. Circumstance No. 13 is
also speculative because if the bedroom was not found bolted
from inside that would it self not show that Manju could not
have committed suicide. Various persons may react to
circumstances in different ways. When Manju entered her
bedroom her husband had not come and since she went to sleep
she may not have bolted the door from inside to enable her
husband to enter the room. As regards circumstance No. 14,
the High Court has overlooked a very important part of the
evidence of PW 2 who has stated at page 178 of part I of the
printed paperbook thus:
"The plastic factory at Beed is a partnership
concern in which two sons of Dhanraj, my wife and
sister-in-law, i.e., brother's wife are partners."
Dr. Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Texicology (19th
Edn.) at page 747 shows that `Cyanide is also used for
making basic chemicals for plastics'. Apart from the fact
that the High Court in relying on this circumstance has
committed a clear error of record, it is an additional
factor to show that cyanide could have been available to
Manju when she visited Beed for the last time and had stayed
there for more than a week.
Circumstance No.15-the fact that Manju was 4 to 6 weeks
pregnant would dissuade Manju from committing suicide is
also purely speculative. A pregnancy of 4 to 6 weeks is not
very serious and can easily be washed out. Moreover, when a
person has decided to end one's life these are matters which
do not count at all. On the other hand, this circumstance
may have prompted her to commit suicide for a child was born
to her, in view of her ill-treatment by her husband and her
in-laws, the child may not get proper upbringing. Any way,
we do not want to land ourselves in the field of surmises
and conjectures as the High Court has done.
159
Circumstance No. 17 is wholly irrelevant because the
prosecution cannot derive any strength from a false plea
unless it has proved its case with absolute certainty.
Circumstance No.17 also is not relevant because there is no
question of taking a false plea of absence from the bedroom
at the relevant time as there is no clear evidence on this
point.
Apart from the aforesaid comments there is one vital
defect in some of the circumstances mentioned above and
relied upon by the High Court, viz., circumstances Nos.
4,5,6,8,9,11,12,13,16, and 17. As these circumstances were
not put to the appellant in his statement under s.313 of the
Criminal Procedure Code they must be completely excluded
from consideration because the appellant did not have any
chance to explain them. This has been consistently held by
this Court as far back as 1953 where in the case of Fateh
Singh Bhagat Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh(1) this Court
held that any circumstance in respect of which an accused
was not examined under s. 342 of the Criminal procedure code
cannot be used against him ever since this decision. there
is a catena of authorities of this Court uniformly taking
the view that unless the circumstance appearing against an
accused is put to him in his examination under s.342 of the
or s.313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the same cannot be
used against him. In Shamu Balu Chaugule v. State of
Maharashtra(2) this Court held thus:
"The fact that the appellant was said to be
absconding not having been put to him under section
342, Criminal Procedure Code, could not be used against
him."
To the same effect is another decision of this Court in
Harijan Megha Jesha v. State of Gujarat (3) where the
following observation were made:
"In the first place, he stated that on the
personal search of the appellant, a chadi was found
which was blood stained and according to the report of
the serologist, it contained human blood.
Unfortunately, however, as this circumstance was not
put to the accused in his statement
160
under section 342, the prosecution cannot be permitted
to rely on this statement in order to convict the
appellant.':
It is not necessary for us to multiply authorities on
this point as this question now stands concluded by several
decision of this Court. In this view of the matter, the
circumstances which were not put to the appellant in his
examination under s.313 of the Criminal Procedure Code have
to be completely excluded from consideration.
We might mention here an important argument advance by
counsel for the appellant and countered by the Additional
Solicitor General. It was argued before the High Court that
it was highly improbable that if the betrothal ceremony of
appellant's sister, which was as important as the marriage
itself, was going to be performed on the 13th of June, would
the appellant clouse a day before that for murdering his
wife and thereby bring disgrace and destruction not only to
his family but also to her sister. We have already adverted
to this aspect of the matter but it is rather interesting to
note how the High Court has tried to rebut this inherent
improbability, on the ground that in a case of
administration of poison the culprit would just wait for an
opportunity to administer the same and once he gets the
opportunity he is not expected to think rationally but would
commit the murder at once. With due respect to the Judges of
the High Court, we are not able to agree with the somewhat
complex line of reasoning which is not supported by the
evidence on record. There is clear evidence, led by the
prosecution that except for a week or few days of intervals,
Manju always used to live with her husband and she had
herself complained that he used to come late at night.
Hence, as both were living alone in the same room for the
last four months there could be no dearth of any opportunity
on the part of the appellant to administer poison if he
really wanted to do so. We are unable to follow the logic of
the High Court's reasoning that once the appellant got an
opportunity he must have clung to it. The evidence further
shows that both Manju and appellant had gone for a honeymoon
outside Pune and even at that time he could have murdered
her and allowed the case to pass for a natural death.
However, these are matters of conjectures.
The Additional Solicitor-General realising the
hollowness of the High Court's argument put it in a
different way. He submitted that as the deceased was 4-6
weeks pregnant the appellant realised
161
that unless the deceased was murdered at the behest it would
become very difficult for him to murder her, even if he had
got an opportunity, if a child was born and then he would
have to maintain the child also which would have affected
his illicit connections with Ujvala. This appears to be an
attractive argument but on close scrutiny it is untenable.
If it was only a question of Manju's being 4-6 weeks
pregnant before her death, the appellant could just as well
have waited just for another fortnight till the marriage of
his sister was over which was fixed for 30th June, 1982 and
then either have the pregnancy terminated or killed her.
Moreover, it would appear from the evidence of PW 2 (P.176)
that in his community the Kohl ceremony is not merely a
formal betrothal but a very important ceremony in which all
the near relations are called and invited to attend the
function and a dinner is hosted. We might extract what PW 2
says about this:
"At the time of Kohl celebration of Manju, on
2.8.1981 my relatives i.e. my sister from outside had
attended this function and many people were invited for
this function. A dinner was also hosted by me. In that
function the father of the bridegroom is required to
spend for the dinner while the presentations made to
the bride are required to be given or donned at the
expenses of the side of bridegroom This programme is
not attended by the bridegroom." (P.176)
As Birdichand and others were made co-accused in the
case they were unable to give evidence on this point but it
is the admitted case of both the parties that the accused
belonged to the same community as PW 2. In these
circumstances, it is difficult to accept the argument that
the appellant would commit the murder of his wife just on
the eve of Kohl ceremony, which he could have done the same
long before that ceremony or after the marriage as there was
no hurry nor any such impediment which would deny him any
opportunity of murdering his wife.
We now come to the nature and character of the
circumstantial evidence. The law on the subject is well
settled for the last 6-7 decades and there have been so many
decisions on this point that the principles laid down by
courts have become more or less axiomatic.
162
The High Court has referred to some decisions of this
Court and tried to apply the ratio of those cases to the
present case which, as we shall show, are clearly
distinguishable. The High Court was greatly impressed by the
view taken by some courts, including this Court, that a
false defence or a false plea taken by an accused would be
an additional link in the various chain of circumstantial
evidence and seems to suggest that since the appellant had
taken a false plea that would be conclusive, taken along
with other circumstances, to prove the case. We might,
however, mention at the outset that this is not what this
Court has said. We shall elaborate this aspect of the matter
a little later
It is well settled that the prosecution must stand or
fall on its own legs and it cannot derive any strength from
the weakness of the defence. This is trite law and no
decision has taken a contrary view. What some cases have
held is only this: where various links in a chain are in
themselves complete than a false plea or a false defence may
be called into aid only to lend assurance to the Court. In
other words, before using the additional link it must be
proved that all the links in the chain are complete and do
not suffer from any infirmity. It is not the law that where
is any infirmity or lacuna in the prosecution case, the same
could be cured or supplied by a false defence or a plea
which is not accepted by a Court.
Before discussing the cases relied upon by the High
Court we would like to cite a few decisions on the nature,
character and essential proof required in a criminal case
which rests on circumstantial evidence alone. The most
fundamental and basic decision of this Court is Hanumant v.
The State of Madhya Pradesh.(1) This case has been uniformly
followed and applied by this Court in a large number of
later decisions uptodate, for instance, the cases of Tufail
(Alias) Simmi v. State of Uttar Pradesh(2) and Ramgopal v.
Stat of Maharashtra(3). It may be useful to extract what
Mahajan, J. has laid down in Hanumant's case (supra):
"It is well to remember that in cases where the
evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the
circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to
be drawn should in the
163
first instance be fully established and all the facts
so established should be consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the
circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and
tendency and they should be such as to exclude every
hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other
words, there must be a chain of evidence so far
complete as not to leave any reasonable ground far a
conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused
and it must be such as to show that within all human
probability the act must have been done by the
accused."
A close analysis of this decision would show that the
following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against
an accused can be said to be fully established:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of
guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the
circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be'
established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal
distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or should
be proved' as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao
Bobade & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra(') where the following
observations were made:
"Certainly, it is a primary principle that the
accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a
court can convict and the mental distance between 'may
be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures
from sure conclusions."
(2) 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,
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature
and tendency.
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis
except the one to be proved, and
164
(5) 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.
These five golden principles, if we may say so,
constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on
circumstantial evidence.
It may be interesting to note that as regards the mode
of proof in a criminal case depending on circumstantial
evidence, in the absence of a corpus deliciti, the statement
of law as to proof of the same was laid down by Gresson, J.
(and concurred by 3 more Judges) in The King v. Horry,(l)
thus:
"Before he can be convicted, the fact of death
should be proved by such circumstances as render the
commission of the crime morally certain and leave no
ground for reasonable doubt: the circumstantial
evidence should be so cogent and compelling as to
convince a jury that up on no rational hypothesis other
than murder can the facts be accounted for."
Lord Goddard slightly modified the expression, morally
certain by 'such circumstances as render the commission of
the crime certain'.
This indicates the cardinal principle' of criminal
jurisprudence that a case can be said to be proved only when
there is certain and explicit evidence and no person can be
convicted on pure moral conviction. Horry's case (supra) was
approved by this Court in Anant Chintaman Lagu v. The State
of Bombay(2) Lagu's case as also the principles enunciated
by this Court in Hanumant's case (supra) have been uniformly
and consistently followed in all later decisions of this
Court without any single exception. To quote a few cases
Tufail's case (supra), Ramgopals case (supra), Chandrakant
Nyalchand Seth v. The State of Bombay (Criminal Appeal No.
120 of 1957 decided on 19.2.58), Dharmbir Singh v. The State
of Punjab (Criminal Appeal No. 98 of 1958 decided on
4.11.1958). There are a number of other cases where although
Hanumant's case has not
165
been expressly noticed but the same principles have been
expounded and reiterated, as in Naseem Ahmed v. Delhi
Administration(l). Mohan Lal Pangasa v. State of U.P.,(2)
Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit v. State of Maharashtra(3) and
M.C. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra(4)-a five-Judge Bench
decision.
It may be necessary here to notice a very forceful
argument submitted by the Additional Solicitor-General
relying on a decision of this Court in Deonandan Mishra v.
The State of Bihar(5), to supplement this argument that if
the defence case is false it would constitute an additional
link so as to fortify the prosecution case. With due respect
to the learned Additional Solicitor General we are unable to
agree with the interpretation given by him of the aforesaid
case, the relevant portion of which may be extracted thus:
"But in a case like this where the various links
as started above have been satisfactorily made out and
the circumstances point to the appellant as the
probable assailant, with reasonable definiteness and in
proximity to the deceased as regards time and
situation-such absence of explanation of false
explanation would itself be an additional link which
completes the chain."
It will be seen that this Court while taking into
account the absence of explanation or a false explanation
did hold that it will amount to be an additional link to
complete the chain but these observations must be read in
the light of what this Court said earlier, viz., before a
false explanation can be used as additional link, the
following essential conditions must be satisfied:
(1) various links in the chain of evidence led by the
prosecution have been satisfactorily proved.
(2) the said circumstance point to the guilt of the
accused with reasonable definiteness, and
(3) the circumstance is in proximity to the time and
situation.
166
If these conditions are fulfilled only then a court can
use a false explanation or a false defence as an additional
link to lend an assurance to the court and not otherwise. On
the facts and circumstances of the present case, this does
not appear to be such a case. This aspect of the matter was
examined in Shankarlal's case (supra) where this Court
observed thus:
"Besides, falsity of defence cannot take the place
of proof of facts which the prosecution has to
establish in order to succeed. A false plea can at best
be considered as an additional circumstance, if other
circumstances point unfailingly to the guilt of the
accused."
This Court, therefore, has in no way departed from the
five conditions laid down in Hanumant's case (supra).
Unfortunately, however, the High Court also seems to have
misconstrued this decision and used the so-called false
defence put up by the appellant as one of the additional
circumstances connected with the chain. There is a vital
difference between an incomplete chain of circumstances and
a circumstance which, after the chain is complete, is added
to it merely to reinforce the conclusion of the court. Where
the prosecution is unable to prove any of the essential
principles laid down in Hanumant's case, the High Court
cannot supply the weakness or the lacuna by taking aid of or
recourse to a false defence or a false plea. We are,
therefore, unable to accept the argument of the Additional
Solicitor-General
Moreover, in M.G. Agarwal's case (supra) this Court
while reiterating the principles enunciated in Hanumant's
case observed thus:
"If the circumstances proved in the case are
consistent either with the innocence of the accused or
with his guilt, then the accused is entitled to the
benefit of doubt."
In Shankarlal's (supra) this Court reiterated the same
view thus:
"Legal principles are not magic incantations and
their importance lies more in their application to a
given set of facts than in their recital in the
judgment".
We then pass on to another important point which seems
to have been completely missed by the High Court. It is well
settled that where on the evidence two possibilities are
available or open,
167
one which goes in favour of the prosecution and the other
which benefits an accused, the accused is undoubtedly
entitled to the benefit of doubt. In Kali Ram v. State of
Himachal Pradesh,(l) this Court made the following
observations:
"Another golden thread which runs through the web
of the administration of justice in criminal cases is
that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced
in the case one pointing to the guilt of the accused
and the other to his innocence, the view which is
favourable to the accused should be adopted This
principle has a special relevance in cases where in the
guilt of the accused is sought to be established by
circumstantial evidence."
We now come to the mode and manner of proof of cases of
murder by administration of poison. In Ramgopal's case
(supra) this Court held thus:
"Three questions arise in such cases, namely
(firstly), did the deceased die of the poison in
question ? (secondly), had the accused the poison in
his possession ? and (thirdly), had the accused an
opportunity to administer the poison in question to the
deceased ? It is only when the motive is there and
these facts are all proved that the court may be able
to draw the inference, that the poison was administered
by the accused to the deceased resulting in his death."
So far as this matter is concerned, in such cases the
court must carefully scan the evidence and determine the
four important circumstances which alone can justify a
conviction:
(1) there is a clear motive for an accused to
administer poison to the deceased,
(2) that the deceased died of poison said to have been
administered,
(3) that the accused had the poison in his possession,
(4) that he had an opportunity to administer the
poison to the deceased.
168
In the instant case, while two ingredients have been
proved but two have not. In the first place, it has no doubt
been proved that Manju died of potassium cyanide and
secondly, it has also been proved that there was an
opportunity to administer the poison. It has, however, not
been proved by any evidence that the appellant had the
poison in his possession. On the other hand, as indicated
above, there is clear evidence of PW 2 that potassium
cyanide could have been available to Manju from the plastic
factory of her mother, but there is no evidence to show that
the accused could have procured potassium cyanide from any
available source. We might here extract a most
unintelligible and extra-ordinary finding of the High Court-
"It is true that there is no direct evidence on
these two points, because the prosecution is not able
to lead evidence that the accused had secured potassium
cyanide poison from a particular source. Similarly
there is no direct evidence to prove that he had
administered poison to Manju. However, it is not
necessary to prove each and every fact by a direct
evidence. Circumstantial evidence can be a basis for
proving this fact."
(P.160)
The comment by the High Court appears to be frightfully
vague and absolutely unintelligible. While holding in the
clearest possible terms that there is no evidence in this
case to show that the appellant was in possession or poison,
the High Court observes that this fact may be proved either
by direct or indirect (circumstantial) evidence. But it
fails to indicate the nature of the circumstantial or
indirect evidence to show that the appellant was in
possession of poison. If the court seems to suggest that
merely because the appellant had the opportunity to
administer poison and the same was found in the body of the
deceased, it should be presumed that the appellant was in
possession of poison, than it has committed a serious and
gross error of law and has blatantly violated the principles
laid down by this Court. The High Court has not indicated as
to what was the basis for coming to a finding that the
accused could have procured the cyanide. On the other hand,
in view of the decision in Ramgopal's case (supra) failure
to prove possession of the cyanide poison with the accused
by itself would result in failure of the prosecution to
prove its case. We are constrained to observe that the High
Court has completely misread and misconstru-
169
ed the decision in Ramgopal's case. Even prior to Ramgopol's
case there are two decisions of this Court which have taken
the same view. In Chandrakant Nyalchand Seth's case
(Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 1957 decided on 19.2.58) this
Court observed thus:
"Before a person can be convicted of murder by
poisoning, it is necessary to prove that the death of
the deceased was caused by poison, that the poison in
question was in possession of the accused and that
poison was administered by the accused to the deceased.
There is no direct evidence in this case that the
accused was in possession of Potassium Cyanide or that
he administered the same to the deceased."
The facts of the case cited above were very much
similar to the present appeal. Here also, the Court found
that circumstances afforded a greater motive to the deceased
to commit suicide than for the accused to commit murder.
This view was reiterated in Dharambir Singh's case (Criminal
Appeal No. 98 of 1958 decided on 4.11.1958) where the court
observed as follows:
"Therefore, along with the motive, the prosecution
has also to establish that the deceased died of a
particular poison said to have been administered, that
the accused was in possession of that poison and that
he had the opportunity to administer the same to the
deceased: (see Mt. Gujrani and another v. Emperor(').
It is only when the motive is there and these facts are
all proved that the court may be able to draw the
inference, in a case of circumstantial evidence, that
the poison was administered by the accused to the
deceased resulting in his death.
We feel that it was not right for the High Court
to say, when this link in the chain had failed, that it
could not be very difficult for anybody to procure
potassium cyanide and therefore the absence of proof of
possession of potassium cyanide by the accused was
practically of no effect. On the facts as found by the
High Court it must be held that the second of the three
facts which have to be proved, in case of poisoning
based on circumstantial evidence has not been proved,
namely that the accused was in possession of the poison
that had been found in the body-Can it
170
be said in these circumstances when the proof of a very
vital fact namely, that the accused was in possession
of potassium cyanide, has failed that the chain of
circumstantial evidence, is so far complete as not to
leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent
with the innocence of the accused and that the evidence
which remains after the rejection of this fact is such
as to show that within all human probability the act
must have been done by the accused."
We are, therefore, clearly of the opinion that the
facts of the present appeal are covered by the ratio of the
aforesaid decisions. At any rate, taking the worst view of
the matter on the evidence in this case two possibilities
are clearly open-
(1) that it may be a case of suicide, or
(2) that it may be a case of murder
and both are equally probable, hence the prosecution case
stands disproved.
We now proceed to deal with some of the judgments of
this Court on which great reliance has been placed by the
High Court. In the first place, the High Court relied on the
case of Pershadi v. State of Uttar Pradesh('). This case
appears to be clearly distinguishable because no point of
law was involved therein and on the facts proved and the
very extraordinary conduct of the accused, the court held
that the circumstantial evidence was consistent only with
the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with any other
rational explanation. Indeed, if this would have been our
finding in this particular case, there could be no question
that the conviction of the accused would have been upheld.
The next on which the High Court placed great reliance
is case Lagu's case (supra). This case also does not appear
to be of any assistance to the prosecution. In the first
place, the case was decided on the peculiar facts of that
case. Secondly, even though the corpus deliciti was not held
to be proved yet the medical evidence and the conduct of the
accused unerringly pointed to the inescapable conclusion
that the death of the deceased was as a result of
administration of poison and that the accused was the person
who admini-
171
stered the same. This. however, is not the case here. On the
other hand, we have held that the conduct of the appellant
has not been proved to be inconsistent with his guilt and on
this ground alone the present case can be easily
distinguished. If at all it is an authority it is on the
point that this Court is not required to enter into an
elaborate examination of the evidence unless there are very
special circumstances to justify the same. At this Court in
that case was clearly of the view that the High Court had
fully considered the facts and a multitude of circumstances
against the accused remained unexplained, the presumption of
innocence was destroyed and the High Court was therefore
right in affirming the conviction. Of course, Sarkar, J.
gave a dissenting judgment. From a detailed scrutiny of the
decision cited above (Lagu's Case) we find that there is
nothing in common between the peculiar facts of that case
and the present one. Hence, this authority is also of no
assistance to the prosecution.
Reliance was then placed on the case of Ram Dass v.
State of Maharashtra(l) but we are unable to see how this
decision helps the prosecution. The High Court relied on the
fact that as the accused had taken the deceased immediately
to the Civil Hospital in order to stop the poison from
spreading, this particular fact was eloquent enough to speak
for the innocence of the accused. A careful perusal of that
decision shows that this Court did not accept the
prosecution case despite circumstances appearing in that
case which are almost similar to those found in the present
one. Moreover, here also the accused had immediately sent
for their family Doctor after they had detected that Manju
was dead. The reason for a little delay in lodging the FIR
has already been explained by us while dealing with the
facts. In the decision cited above, it was clearly held that
the case against the accused was not proved conclusively and
unerringly and that two reasonable views were possible, the
relevant portion of which may be extracted thus:
"On a consideration of the evidence and the
circumstances referred to above, we are satisfied that
this is a case in which the circumstantial evidence did
not prove the case against the accused conclusively and
unerringly, and at any rate two reasonable views were
possible."
172
We have already found in the instant case that taking
the prosecution at the highest the utmost that can be said
is that two views-one in favour of the accused and the other
against him-were possible. Ram Dass's case also therefore
supports the appellant rather than the prosecution.
The last case relied upon by the High Court is
Shankarlal's case (supra) but we are unable to see how this
case helps the prosecution. The observations on which the
High Court has relied upon appears to have been torn from
the context. On the other hand, this decision fully supports
the case of the appellant that falsity of defence cannot
take the place of proof of facts which the prosecution has
to establish in order to succeed. This decision has already
been dealt with by us while considering the merits of the
present case and it is not necessary to repeat the same.
These are the only important cases of this Court on
which the High Court seeks to rely and which, on a close
examination, do not appear to be either relevant or helpful
to the prosecution case in any way. On the other hand, some
of the observations made in these cases support the accused
rather than the prosecution.
This now brings us to the fag end of our judgment.
After a detailed discussion of the evidence, the
circumstances of the case and interpretation of the
decisions of this Court the legal and factual position may
be summarised thus:
(1) That the five golden principles enunciated by this
Court in Hanumant's decision (supra) have not been
satisfied in the instant case. As a logical
corollary, it follows that it cannot be held that
the act of the accused cannot be explained on any
other hypothesis except the guilt of the appellant
nor can it be said that in all human probability,
the accused had committed the murder of Manju. In
other words, the prosecution has not fulfilled the
essential requirements of a criminal case which
rests purely on circumstantial evidence.
(2) That, at any rate, the evidence clearly shows that
two views are possible-one pointing to the guilt
of the accused and the other leading to his
innocence. It
173
may be very likely that the appellant may have
administered the poison (potassium cyanide) to
Manju but at the same time a fair possibility that
she herself committed suicide cannot be safely
excluded or eliminated. Hence, on this ground
alone the appellant is entitled to the benefit of
doubt resulting in his acquittal.
(3) The prosecution has miserably failed to prove one
of the most essential ingredients of a case of
death caused by administration of poison, i.e.,
possession of poison with the accused (either by
direct of circumstantial evidence) and on this
ground alone the prosecution must fail.
(4) That in appreciating the evidence, the High Court
has clearly misdirected itself on many points, as
pointed out by us, and has thus committed a gross
error of law:
(5) That the High Court has relied upon decisions of
this Court which are either inapplicable or which,
on closer examination, do not support the view of
the High Court being clearly distinguishable.
(6) That the High Court has taken a completely wrong
view of law in holding that even though the
prosecution may suffer from serious infirmities it
could be reinforced by additional link in the
nature of false defence in order to supply the
lacuna and has thus committed a fundamental error
of law.
(7) That the High Court has not only misappreciated
the evidence but has completely overlooked the
well established principles of law and in view of
our finding it is absolutely clear that the High
Court has merely tried to accept the prosecution
case based on tenterhooks and slender tits and
bits.
(8) We entirely agree with the High Court that it is
wholly unsafe to rely on that part of the evidence
of Dr. Banerjee (PW 33) which shows that poison
was
174
forcibly administered by the process of mechanical
suffocation.
(9) We also agree with the High Court that there is no
manifest defect in the investigation made by the
police which appears to be honest and careful. A
proof positive of this fact is that even though
Rameshwar Birdichand and other members of his
family who had practically no role to play had
been arrayed as accused but they had to be
acquitted by the High Court for lack of legal
evidence.
(10) That in view of our finding that two views are
clearly possible in the present case, the question
of defence being false dose not arise and the
argument of the High Court that the defence is
false does not survive.
This was a fit case in which the High Court should have
given at least the benefit of doubt to the appellant.
Normally, this Court does not interfere with the
concurrent findings of fact of the courts below, in the
absence of very special circumstances or gross errors of law
committed by the High Court. But where the High Court
ignores or overlocks the crying circumstances and proved
facts, violates and misapplies the well established
principles of criminal jurisprudence or decisions rendered
by this Court on appreciation of circumstantial evidence and
refuses to give benefit of doubt to the accused despite
facts apparent on the face of the record or on its own
findings or tries to gloss over them without giving any
reasonable explanation or commits errors of law apparent on
the face of the record which results in serious and
substantial miscarriage of justice to the accused, it is the
duty of this Court to step in and correct the legally
erroneous decision of the High Court.
We can fully understand that though the case
superficially viewed bears an ugly look so as to prima facie
shock the conscience of any Court yet suspicion, however
great it may be, cannot take the place of legal proof. A
moral conviction however strong or genuine cannot amount to
a legal conviction supportable in law.
175
It must be recalled that the well established rule of
criminal justice is that 'fouler the crime higher the
proof'. In the instant case, the life and liberty of a
subject was at stake. As the accused was given a capital
sentence, a very careful, cautious and meticulous approach
was necessary to be made.
Manju (from the evidence on the record) appears to be
not only a highly sensitive woman who expected whole-hearted
love and affection from her husband but having been
thoroughly disappointed out of sheer disgust, frustration
and depression she may have chosen to end her life-at least
this possibility is clearly gleaned from her letters and
mental attitude. She may have been fully justified in
entertaining an expectation that after marriage her husband
would look after her with affection and regard. This is
clearly spelt out in the letters where she hinted that her
husband a was so busy that he found no time for her. A hard
fact of life, which cannot be denied, is that some people in
view of their occupation or profession fined very little
time to devote to their family. Speaking in a light vein,
lawyers, professors, Doctors and perhaps Judges fall within
this category and to them Manju's case should be an eye-
opener.
For the reasons given above we hold that the
prosecution has failed to prove its case against appellant
beyond reasonable doubt. We, therefore, allow the appeal,
set aside the judgments of the courts below and acquit the
appellant, Sharad Bridichand Sarda, of the charges framed
against him and direct him to be released and set at liberty
forthwith.
VARADARAJAN, J. This appeal by special leave is
directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the
Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 265 of 1983 and
Confirmation Case No. 3 of 1983, dismissing the appeal and
confirming the sentence of death awarded to the first
accused Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (hereinafter referred to as
the 'appellant') by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in
Sessions Case No. 203 of 1982. The appellant, Rameshwar
Birdhichand Sarda and Ramvilas Rambagas Sarda were accused
1, 2 and 3 respectively in the Sessions Case.
The appellant and the second accused are the sons of
one Birdhichand of Pune whose family has a cloth business.
In addition
176
the appellant who is said to be a graduate in Chemical
Engineering had started a chemical factory at Bhosari, a
suburb of Pune. The third accused is uncle of the appellant
and the second accused. The appellant is the husband of
Manjushree alias Manju while the second accused is the
husband of Anuradha (P.W.35). Birdhichand's family has its
residential house at Ravivar Peth in Pune and owns a flat in
a building known as Takshasheela Apartments in Mukund Nagar
area of Pune.
Manju, the alleged victim in this case, was the eldest
amongst the five children of Rameshwar (P.W 2) and Parwati
(P.W.20). Anju (P.W.6) is the second daughter of P.W.2 who
is a Commercial Tax and Income Tax Consultant since 1960.
P.W.2 is living in his own house situate in Subash Road in
Beed city since 1973, prior to which he was living in a
rented house in Karimpura Peth in that city. Meena (P.W.5)
is a school and college mate and friend of Manju who passed
the B.Sc. examination in Chemistry in the First Class in
1980 while P.W.5 who had passed the 10th standard
examination together with Manju was still studying in
college. Rekha (P.W.3) whom Manju used to call as Vahini is
another friend of Manju. She is living with her husband Dr.
Dilip Dalvi in a portion of P.W.2's house in Subash Road,
Pune as his tenant. P.W.20's elder brother Dhanraj Rathi
(P.W.22) is a resident of Pune where he is doing business in
the sale of plastic bags for the manufacture of which he has
a plastic factory called Deepak Plastics at Beed. It is a
partnership concern of P.W.20 and some others including
P.W.22's third son Shrigopal. Deepak is one of the two sons
of P.Ws. 2 and 20.
After Manju passed her B.Sc. degree examination in 1980
her marriage with the appellant was settled by a formal
betrothal ceremony which took place in June 1981. The
marriage of the appellant and Manju was performed at the
expense of P.W.2 at Beed on 11.2.1982. The appellant and
Manju left for Pune on 12.2.1982 after the marriage.
Subsequently, P.W.2 sent his elder son Deepak for fetching
Manju from the appellant's house at Pune and they
accordingly came back to Beed on 22.2.1982. The appellant
went to Beed four or five days later and took Manju back to
Pune on the next day after pleading his inability to stay in
P.W.2's house for some more days. This was Manju's first
visit to her parents' house after her marriage with the
appellant. She is said to have been very happy during that
visit. Thereafter Manju came to her parents' house alongwith
her maternal uncle Dhanraj Rathi (P.W.22) on or about
177
2.4.1982. It is the case of the prosecution that during that
visit Manju was uneasy and had generally complained against
the appellant to P.Ws.3 and 6. P.W.2 planned to keep Manju
in his house for about three weeks on that occasion. But
news of the death of the appellant's grand father was
received in P.W.2's house in Beed and, therefore, P.Ws. 2
and 20 and Manju went to Pune for condolences on 11.4.1982.
After meeting the appellant's father and others at Pune,
P.Ws. 2 and 20 returned to Beed leaving Manju in the
appellant's house in Pune. That was the second visit of
Manju to her parents' house after marriage with the
appellant. P.Ws.2 and 20 came to Pune again on or about
13.5.1982. After staying for some time as usual in the house
of P.W. 22, P.Ws. 2 and 20 visited the house of Birdhichand
on that occasion. It is the case of the prosecution that
P.Ws. 2 and 20 found Manju disturbed and uneasy and that
they, therefore, took her to the house of P.W. 22 with the
permission of Birdhichand. It is also the case of the
prosecution that on reaching P.W. 22's house Manju
completely broke down and started weeping in the arms of
P.W.20. P.Ws. 2 and 20 returned to Beed from Pune and sent
their second son Pardeep four or five days later to fetch
Manju, who had, however, by then gone with the appellant to
Tirupati in Andhra Pradesh. After learning that the
appellant and Manju had returned to Pune, P.W.2 sent his son
Deepak to fetch Manju to Beed. Accordingly Deepak brought
Manju to Beed accompanied by the third accused daughter
Kavita on 25.5.1982. This was Manju's third and last visit
to her parents' house after her marriage with the appellant.
It is the case of the prosecution that Manju was totally
disturbed and frightened during that visit and that she
complained to her mother P.W.20 against the appellant and
she in turn conveyed to P.W.20 what she heard from Manju.
Birdhichand went to Beed on 2.6.1982 without any prior
intimation for taking Manju to Pune on the ground that
Manju's presence in his family house at pune was necessary
for the betrothal ceremony of his daughter Shobha fixed for
13.6.1982 as well as for her marriage fixed for 30.6.1982.
It is the case of the prosecution that when Manju came to
know that her father in-law Birdhichand had come for taking
her to Pune she was wept and expressed her unwillingness to
go to Pune and that, however, on the assurance of
Birdhichand that he would see to it that nothing happened to
the life of Manju, P.W.2 permitted Manju to go to Pune
alongwith Birdhichand and she accordingly went to Pune on
3.6.1982 alongwith Kavita and Birdhichand.
178
The family of Birdhichand and his sons including the
appellant is joint. As stated earlier they have their
family's residential house at Ravivar Peth, Pune besides the
flat which they owned in the Takshasheela Apartments situate
at some distance from their family house. Their flat has two
bed-rooms besides a hall and other portions. Birdhichand's
two married sons, the appellant and the second accused used
to go to the family's flat in the Takshasheela Apartments
for sleeping during the nights. The appellant and Manju used
to sleep in one of the two bed-rooms while the second
accused and his wife Anuradha (P.W.35) and their children
used to sleep in the other bed-room.
Manju had written amongst others, three letters, Ex.33
dated 25.4.1982 to her friend vahini (P.W.3) and Ex. p. 30
dated 8.2.1982 and p. 32 dated 8.6.1982 to her younger
sister Anju (P.W.6). In Ex. 33 Manju has stated inter alia
that she was feeling lonely though all persons in pune were
very good and everybody was loving and that one reason is
that there are many elderly persons in the house and,
therefore, she does not dare to do any work independently
and the fear which is in her mind every time leads to
confusion. She has also stated in that letter though all
person in Pune were very good that she becomes angry if he
(appellant) does not speak to her when she goes and talks to
him even ten times and that till now this man (appellant)
had no time to mind his wife. She has stated in that letter
that she dare not ask him (appellant) whether his clothes be
taken for washing and that at present her status is only
that of an unpaid maid-servant. She has finally stated in
that letter that on the day on which self-pride in the
appellant is reduced no other person will be more fortunate
than her but it is not certain whether she will be alive
until that date. In Ex. 30 she has stated inter alia that
she was undergoing a very difficult test and was unable to
achieve her object, that it would be well and good only if
she controls herself and that some other way will have to be
evolved when' that becomes impossible. In Ex. 32 she has
stated that though she was happy at Pune she does not know
why there is such a dirty atmosphere in the house and it is
felt every moment that something will happen. She has also
stated in that letter that no work had been started in the
house though Shobha's 'sari' function is fixed for 13.6.1982
and, therefore, she is out of her mind.
The case of the prosecution as regards the alleged
occurrence during the night of 11/12.6.1982 is thus: on 11-
6-1982 at about 10.30 p.m. Manju accompanied by Anuradha,
(P.W. 35) and
179
three children of the latter came to the Taksheela
Apartments by an auto-rickshaw. The night-watchman of the
Takshasheela Apartments, kerba (P.W. 28) has deposed about
this fact. Syed Mohideen, (P.W. 7) an auto-rickshaw driver
residing in the border of Ganesh Peth and Ravivar Peth in
Pune claims to have taken two ladies, three children and a
baby by his auto-rickshaw at about 11 p.m. on that day to
Mukund Nagar. He has identified the photo of Manju published
in a newspaper two or three days later as that of one of the
two ladies who travelled by his auto-rickshaw as aforesaid.
The second accused had already gone to the flat in the
Takshasheela Apartments. The appellant reached the flat
about 15 minutes later by a scooter, whom the night watchman
(P.W. 28) remarked that he was coming rather late he told
P.W. 28 that it was because he had a meeting. After the
appellant reached the flat he and Manju retired to their
bed-room while the second accused and P.W. 35 retired to
their's. Thereafter the appellant came out of his bed-room
at about 2 a.m. on 12.6.1982 and went to the second accused
and both of them went out of that flat by scooters soon
afterwards. The appellant proceeded to Ravivar Peth and
called his father while the second accused went to call Dr.
Uttam chand Lodha. (P.W. 24) who lives about one and a half
kilo metres away from the Takshasheela Apartments without
seeking the help of Dr. Anjali Kelkar,(P.W. 26) and her
husband Dr. Shrikant Kelkar (P.W. 27) who lived close by in
the same Takshasheela Apartments. P.W. 24 reached the
appellant's flat at about 2.30 a.m. and found Manju dead,
with rigor motis having already set in and no external mark
showing the cause of death. He, however, opined that it may
be a case of unnatural death and suggested that the police
may be informed. When Birdhichand who had arrived at the
flat by then advised that some other doctor may be called as
he was not satisfied with the opinion of P.W- 24 suggested
that Dr. Anil Gandhi, P.W 25 may be called if so desired.
Thereafter, P.W. 24 and the third concerned who had come
with Birdhichand went to call P.W. 25 who lives about 7 kilo
metres away from the Takshasheela Apartments. On their way
they contacted P.W. 25 over the phone and took him to the
appellant's flat where he examined Manju at about 4 a.m. and
pronounced that she was dead. He opined that she might have
died three or four hours earlier and stated that there was
no external evidence showing the cause of death. He too
suggested that the police should be informed to avoid any
trouble.
180
The third accused went to Mohan Asava, (P.W. 30) at
about 4.30 a.m. on 12.6.1982 and called him to the
appellant's flat after informing him that Manju was dead.
P.W. 30, who accompanied the third accused, saw the body of
Manju in the flat and left the place after suggesting that
the police should be informed. The third accused contacted
P.W. 30 over the phone at about 6.30 a.m. and asked him to
go and inform the police that Manju had died at 5.30 a.m.
P.W. 30 accordingly went to Maharishi Nagar Police Station
at about 7 or 7.15 a.m. and informed the Head Constable,
(P.W. 31) who thereupon made the entry Ex. 120 to the effect
that Manju was found to be dead when the appellant tried to
wake her a up at 5.30 a.m- on 12.6.1982. P.W. 31 proceeded
to the appellant's flat at about 8 a.m. after informing the
Inspector of Police, P.W. 40 telephonically about the
suspicious death of Manju.
On receipt of information from P.W. 22 by a lightning
telephone call at about 6 a.m. on 12.6.1982 that Manju was
extremely serious P.W. 2 went from Beed to Pune alongwith
his wife P.W. 20 and his son Pradeep and Hiralal Sarda (P.W.
4) by jeep at about 1 P.m. on 12.6.1982. and learnt that
Manju was dead. Thereafter P.W.2 went alongwith Hiralal
Sarda to the Sasson Hospital where Manju's body had been
sent by the police for autopsy.
Dr. Kalikrishnan Banerji, P.W. 33 who conducted autopsy
on the body of Manju did not find any external or internal
injury. He preserved the viscera, small intestines etc. of
Manju and reserved his opinion about the cause of her death.
On receipt of the Chemical Examiner's report Ex. 130 to the
effect that Manju's viscera contained potassium cyanide
poison P.W. 33 finally opined that Manju had died due to
potassium cyanide poisoning and simultaneous mechanical
suffocation. After completing the investigation P. W.40
filed the charge-sheet against the appellant and the other
two accused on 13.9.1982.
The Additional Sessions Judge, Pune tried the appellant
for offence under Sec. 302 IPC of murder of Manju by
administering potassium cyanide poison or by suffocating her
or by both, all the three accused for the offence under Sec.
120 B IPC of conspiring to destroy the evidence of the
murder of Manju by giving a false report to the police about
the time of her death and the third accused for the offence
under Sec. 109 read with Sec. 201 IPC and Sec. 201 IPC for
intsigating P.W.30 to give false information to the police
and giving false information to P.W. 22 regarding the murder
of Manju.
181
The appellant and the other two accused denied the
charges framed against them. The appellant denied that he
had anything to do with Ujvala (P.W. 37) with whom is
alleged to have been in love at the relevant time. He
admitted that Manju and P.W. 35 accompanied by some children
went to their flat in the Takshasheela Apartments at about
10.30 p.m. on 11.6.1982 but denied that they travelled by
any auto-rickshaw and stated that they went there by their
family's car driven by the second accused. He denied that he
went to the flat about 15 minutes later and stated that he
returned to the fiat only at 1.30 or 1.45 a.m. on 12.6 1982
after attending a meeting in the Rajasthan Youth Club. He
stated that after changing his clothes he looked at Manju
and found something abnormal and became suspicious and then
went to the second accused and that there after he went to
call his father and uncle while the second accused went to
call Dr. Lodha, P.W. 24.
The Trial Court found all the three accused guilty as
charged and convicted them accordingly and sentenced the
appellant to death under s.302 IPC and all the three accused
to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.
2,000 each under s.120 B IPC but did not award any sentence
under s.201 read with s.120B
The appellant and the other two accused filed appeals
against their conviction and the sentences awarded to them.
The State filed a criminal revision application for
enhancement of the sentence awarded to accused 2 and 3.
These appeals, confirmation case and criminal revision
application were heard together by the Division Bench of the
Bombay High Court, which in a lengthy judgment. (195 pages
of our paper book) allowed the appellant's appeal in part
regarding his conviction and sentence under s.120 B IPC but
confirmed his conviction and sentence of death awarded under
s 302 IPC and allowed the appeal of accused 2 and 3 in full
and acquitted them and dismissed the criminal revision
application. Hence, the appellant alone has come up before
this Court on special leave against his conviction and the
sentence of death.
I had the benefit of reading the judgment of my learned
brother Fazal Ali, J. I agree with his final conclusion that
the appeal should succeed. The learned Judges of the High
Court have relied upon 17 circumstances for confirming the
conviction and sentence of death awarded to the appellant.
My learned brother Fazal Ali, J. has rightly rejected every
one of those circumstances as not conclusively pointing to
the guilt of the appellant, including the
182
circumstance that the appellant was last seen with Manju
before her death on the ground that the case of the
prosecution based on evidence of Dr. Banerji (P.W. 33) that
there was any mechanical suffocation of Manju has been
disbelieved by the High Court itself and that some entries
in the carbon copy Ex. 134 of P.W. 33's report sent to the
Chemical Examiner had been scored and interpolated after his
report Ex. 132 to the Chemical Examiner had left his hands,
that the original entry in the postmortem certificate Ex.
134 contained the words 'can be a case of suicidal death'
and, that the explanation of P.W.33. that he wrote the words
'time of death' twice and not the words 'can be a case of
suicidal death' and, therefore, he scored off one of them is
not acceptable at all. Doctors P.W.24 and 25 did not find
any external injury on the body of Manju which they saw at
about 2.30 and 4.30 a.m. on 12.6.1982. Even P.W.33. did not
find any external or internal injury on the body of Manju.
In these circumstances, unless the prosecution excludes the
possibility of Manju having committed suicide by consuming
potassium cyanide poison, as rightly pointed out by my
learned brother Fazal Ali, J., (no adverse inference of
guilt can be drawn against the appellant from the fact that
he was last seen with Manju, he being no other than her own
husband who is naturally expected to be with her during
nights.) Some of these 17 circumstances cannot, by any
stretch of imagination, be held to point to the quilt of the
appellant. Circumstance No. 6 is an attempt of the
appellant's father Birdhichand to get the body of Manju
cremated before 7 a.m. On 12.6.1982 by expressing such a
desire to P.W.30. Circumstance No.9 is arrangement of the
dead body of Manju to make it appear that she died a
peaceful and natural death. Circumstance No. 11 is absence
of an anklet of Manju from her leg. Circumstance No. 12 is
the conduct of the appellant in allegedly concealing the
anklet in the fold of the chaddar. Circumstance No. 15 is
the fact that according to the medical evidence Manju was
pregnant by four to six weeks and it would normally dissuade
her from committing suicide. With respect to the learned
judges of the High Court, in my view, by no stretch of
imagination, can any of these circumstances be considered to
point to nothing but the guilt of the appellant in a case
resting purely on circumstantial evidence.
However, since I am unable to persuade myself to agree
with my learned brother Fazal Ali, J. on four points, I am
writing this separate but concurring judgment, giving my
view on those points, namely, (1) ill-treatment of Manju by
the appellant, (2) intimacy of
183
the appellant with Ujvala (P.W.37), (3) admissibility of
Manju's letters Exs. 30,32 and 33 and the oral evidence of
P.Ws. 2,3,5,6 and 20 about the alleged complaints made by
Manju against the appellant under s. 32 (1) of the Evidence
Act and (4) conduct of Dr. Banerji (P.W.33) who had
conducted autopsy on the body of Manju.
My learned brother Fazal Ali, J. has observed as
follows at pages 3 and 96 of his judgment:
"On the other hand the plea of the defence was
that while there was a strong possibility of Manju
having been ill-treated and uncared for by her husband
and her in-laws, being a highly sensitive and
impressionate woman, she committed suicide out of sheer
depression and frustration arising from an emotional
upsurge." (P-3)
"On the other hand this circumstance may have
prompted her to commit suicide, for if a child was born
to her, in view of her ill-treatment by her husband and
her in laws the child may not get proper upbringing".
(P.96)
I do not recollect any admission by Mr. Ram Jethmalani,
learned counsel for the appellant in the course of his
arguments about any cruelty or ill-treatment to Manju the
part of the appellant or his parents. The evidence of P.W.3
is that during Manju's second visit to Beed after her
marriage with the appellant she found Manju not quite happy
and very much afraid of the appellant. The evidence of P.W.5
is that during Manju's second visit to Beed, Manju
complained to her about the appellant returning home late in
the night and avoiding to have a talk with her and that
Manju told her that she was afraid of the appellant and
apprehended danger to her life at his hands. The further
evidence of the P.W.5 is that during her third visit to Beed
she inferred from Manju's face a spell of fear. The evidence
of P.W.6 is that during Manju's second visit to Beed, Manju
told her that the appellant used to leave the house early in
the morning and return late at night under the pretext of
work in his factory and that he was even reluctant to talk
with her. P.W.6 has stated that during Manju's third visit
to Beed she was extremely uneasy. disturbed and under a
spell of fear, that Manju told her the appellant did not
relish even her question as to why he was not prepared to
have a simple talk with her, and that
184
during her third visit to Beed, Manju expressed her
unwillingness to go to Pune when Birdhichand went to Beed on
2.6.1982 for taking her to Pune. To the same effect is the
evidence of P.W s. 2 and 20 about how Manju looked in
spirit and what she stated during her last two visits. My
learned brother Fazal Ali, J. has rightly rejected the oral
evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3, 5, 6 and 20. He has extracted the
relevant portions of the letters Exs. 30, 32 and 33 in his
judgment and has observed at page 23 that one thing which
may be conspicuously noticed in Ex. 30 is that Manju was
prepared to take all the blame on herself rather than
incriminating her husband or his rents at page 24 that it
was conceded by the learned Additional Solicitor General
that the relevant portion of Ex.32 does not refer to any ill
treatment of Manju by the appellant or his parents; and at
page 30 that it can be easily inferred from Ex. 33 that
Manju did not have any serious complaint against the
appellant except that she was not getting proper attention
which she deserved from him. These three letters do not
establish that Manju made any complaint of any ill-treatment
by the appellant or his parents. In my view, these three
letters and the aforesaid oral evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3 5 6
and 20 are inadmissible in evidence under s. 32(1) of the
Evidence Act for reasons to be given elsewhere in my
judgment. Thus there is no acceptable evidence on record to
show that either the appellant or his parents ill-treat
Manju. The High Court also has not found any such ill
treatment in its judgment. On the other hand, what has been
found by the High Court in para 104 of its judgment is that
the appellant treated Manju contemptuously. Even while
setting out the case of the prosecution the High Court has
stated in para 7 of its judgment that it is alleged that the
appellant started giving contemptuous treatment to Manju and
in para 20 that the appellant has denied in his statement
recorded under s.313 Cr.P.C. that Manju was being treated
contemptuously. No question has been put to the appellant in
the course of his examination under s.313 Cr.P.C. about any
ill treatment of Manju by the appellant or his parents. My
learned brother Fazal Ali, J. has referred in pages 97 and
98 of his judgment to this Court's decisions in Fateh Singh
Bhagat Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Shamu Babu Chaugale
v. State of Mahararstra and Harijan Megha Jesha v. State of
Gujarat(3) and has observed at page 98 of his judgment that
circumstance not put to the appellant in his examination
under s. 313 Cr.PC. have to be completely excluded from
consideration in view of those decisions. Therefore, since
185
no question has been put to the appellant in this regard in
the course of his examination under s 313 Cr.P.C.. even if
there is any evidence about any ill-treatment of Manju by
the appellant or his parents it has to be completely
excluded from consideration. I felt it necessary to say this
in my judgment since I think that in fairness to the
appellant it has to be done.
My learned brother Fazal Ali, J. has set out the case
of the prosecution in so far as it connects P,W. 37 with the
appellant at page 3 of his judgment where he has stated that
the positive case of the prosecution is that the appellant
was not at all interested in Manju and had illicit intimacy
with P.W.37. On this point there is the evidence of P.Ws. 3,
5 and 6. The evidence of P.W.3 is that during her second
visit to Beed, Manju informed her that the appellant had a
girl-friend by name Ujwala Kothari and that he introduced
her (Ujvala Kothari) to her and told her that she should
learn from Ujvala Kothari about how she should behave with
him. The evidence of P.W.5. is that during her second visit
to Beed, Manju told her that the appellant had an affair
with a girl by name Ujvala Kothari and that she had seen
Ujvala's latter addressed to the appellant and an incomplete
letter of the appellant addressed to that girl. No such
letters have been produced in evidence. The evidence of
P.W.6 is that during her second visit to Beed, Manju told
her that the appellant had an affair with a girl by name
Ujvala Kothari and also introduced that girl to her in the
Pearl Hotel saying that she has complete command over him
and that she (Manju) should take lessons from her (Ujvala
Kothari) about how she should behave with him. There is no
other evidence regarding this alleged illicit intimacy
between the appellant and P.W.37. This alleged illicit
intimacy is totally denied not only by the appellant but
also by P,W.37. The alleged incident in the Pearl Hotel,
according to the case of the prosecution took place on
17.3.1982. But there is no reference whatever to any such
incident in any of the subsequent three letters of Manju,
Exs. 30, 32 and 33, dated 25.4.1982, 8.5.1982 and 8.6.1982
respectively. My learned brother Fazal Ali, J. has rightly
rejected the oral evidence not only of P.Ws. 3, 5 and 6 but
also of P.Ws.2 and 20 as untrustworthy at page 65 of his
judgment. However, at page 68 he has stated that it has been
proved to some extent that the appellant had some sort of
intimacy with Ujvala Kothari and it had embittered the
relationship between the appellant and Manju. In my view, as
already stated, the oral evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3, 5, 6 and 20
about what Manju is alleged to have told them against the
appellant and or his
186
family, and even her letters Exs. 30, 32 and 33 are
inadmissible in evidence under s.32(1) of the Evidence Act.
Thus, there is absolutely no reliable or admissible evidence
on record to show that the appellant had any intimacy with
Ujwala (P.W.37). I am, therefore, unable to share the view
of my learned brother Fazal Ali, J. that the prosecution has
proved to some extent that the appellant had some sort of
intimacy with P.W.37 and it had embittered the relationship
between the appellant and Manju. I think that I am bound to
say this in fairness to not only the appellant but also
P.W.37 who, on the date of her examination in the Court, was
a 19 years old student and has stated in her evidence that
she had known the appellant only as the President of the
Rajasthan Youth Club in the year 1979 when she was a member
of that Club for about 5 or 6 months in that year.
My learned brother Fazal Ali, J. has referred to the
oral evidence of P.Ws.2, 3, 5, 6 and 20 about Manju's
alleged complaint against the appellant and or his parents
and also to the contents of Manju letters, Exs. 30, 32 and
33. I have mentioned above the gist of that oral evidence
and those three letters. My learned brother has held the
said oral evidence and those three latters to be. admissible
under s.32(1) of the Evidence Act while rejecting the oral
evidence to those five witnesses as untrustworthy at pages
64 and 65 of his judgment, mainly on the ground that the
oral evidence is quite inconsistent with the spirit and
contents of those letters. He appears of have relied upon
those three letters for two purposes, namely, rejecting the
oral evidence of those five witnesses as untrustworthy and
supporting the defence version that it may be a case of
suicidal death. In my opinion the oral evidence of those
five witnesses about what Manju is alleged to have told them
against the appellant and or his parents and the three
letters, are inadmissible under s. 32(1) of the Evidence
Act, which reads thus:
"32. Statements, written or verbal, of relevant
facts made by a person who is dead, or who cannot be
found, or who has become incapable of giving evidence,
or whose attendance cannot be procured without an
amount of delay or expense which, under the
circumstances of the case, appears to the Court
unreasonable, are themselves relevant facts in the
following cases:-
(1) When the statement is made by a person as to the
cause of his death, or as to any of the
circumstances
187
of the transaction which resulted in his death, in
cases in which the cause of that person's death
comes into question".
The alleged oral statements of Manju to P,Ws. 2, 3, 5,
6 and 20 are said to have been made during her second and
third visits to Beed in the end of February 1982 and end of
May 1982 respectively before her death during the night of
11/12.6.1982. She had written the letters, Exs. 33, 30 and
32 on 25.4.1982, 8.5.1982 and 8.6.1982 as stated earlier.
The oral evidence of these witnesses and these three letters
are not as to the cause of Manju's death or as to any of the
circumstances of the transaction which resulted in her death
during that night. The position of law relating to the
admissibility of evidence under s. 32(1) is well settled. It
is, therefore, not necessary to refer in detail to the
decisions of this Court or of the Privy Council or our High
Courts. It would suffice to extract what the learned authors
Woodroffe and Amir Ali have stated in their Law of Evidence,
fourteenth edition and Ratanlal and Dhirajlal in their Law
of Evidence (1982) reprint). Those propositions are based
mostly on decisions of courts for which reference has been
given at the end. They are these:
Woodroffe & Amir Ali's Law of Evidence, fourteenth
edition. Page- 937
'Hearsay is excluded because it is considered not
sufficiently trustworthy. It is rejected because it
lacks the sanction of the test applied to admissible
evidence, namely, the oath and cross-examination. But
where there are special circumstances which give a
guarantee of trustworthiness to the testimony, it is
admitted even though it comes from a second-hand
source".
Page-941
"What is relevant and admissible under clause (1)
of this section (Section-32) is the statements actually
made by the deceased as to the cause of his death or of
the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in
his death".
Page-945-946
"A statement must be as to the cause of the
declarant's death or as to any of the circumstances of
the transaction which resulted in his death i.e. the
cause and circumstances of the death and not previous
or subsequent transaction,
188
such independent transactions being excluded as not
falling within the principle of necessary on which such
evidence is received. When a person is not proved to
have died as a result of injuries received in the
incident in question, his statement cannot be said to
be a statement as to the cause of his death or as to
any of the circumstances which resulted in his death.
(AIR 1964 SC 900). Where there is nothing to show that
the injury to which a statement in the dying
declaration relates was the cause of the injured
person's death or that the circumstances under which it
was received resulted in his death, the statement is
not admissible under this clause". (AIR 25 Bombay 45).
Page-947
"Circumstances of the transaction resulting in his
death; This clause refers to two kinds of statements:
(i) when the statement is made by a person as to the
cause of his death or (ii) when the statement is made
by a person as to any of the circumstances of the
transaction which resulted in his death. The words
'resulted in his death' do not mean 'caused his death'.
The expression 'any of the circumstances of the
transaction which resulted in his death' is wider in
scope than the expression 'the cause of his death. The
declarant need not actually have been apprehending
death." (AIR 1964 M.P. 30).
Page-947
"The expression 'circumstances of the transaction'
. occurring in s.32, clause (1) has been a source of
perplexity to Courts faced with the question as to what
matters are admissible within the meaning of the
expression. The decision of their Lordships of the
Privy Council in Pukala Narayanaswanmi v. Emperor (LR
66 IA 66) sets the limits of the matters that could
legitimately be brought within the purview of that
expression. Lord Atkin, who delivered the judgment of
the Board, has, however, made it abundantly clear that,
except in special circumstances no circumstance could
be a circumstance of the transaction if it is not
confined to either the time actually occupied by the
transaction resulting in death or the sense in which
the actual transaction resulting in death took place.
The special circumstance permitted to transgress the
time factor is, for example, a case of prolonged
poisoning, while the special circumstance
189
permitted to transgress the distance factor is, for
example, a case of decoying with intent to murder. But
the circumstances must be circumstances of the
transaction and they must have some proximate relation
to the actual occurrence."
Page-948
"Circumstances of the transaction' is a phrase no
doubt that conveys some limitations. It is not as broad
as the analogous use in 'circumstantial evidence' which
includes the evidence of all relevant factors. It is on
the other hand narrower than 'res gestae'.
Circumstances must have some proximate relation to the
actual occurrence, though, as for instance, in the case
of prolonged poisoning they may be related to dates at
a considerable distance from the date of actual fatal
dose".
Page-948
"The Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Kumar v.
State of U.P. (1966 Criminal Appeal R. (SC) 281) has
made similar observations that the circumstances must
have some proximate, relation to the actual occurrence.
and that general expressions indicating fear or
suspicion, whether of a particular individual or
otherwise and not directly to the occasion of death
will not be admissible".
Page -949
"The clause does not permit the reception in
evidence of all such statement of a dead person as may
relate to matters having a bearing howsoever remote on
the cause or the circumstances of his death. It is
confined to only such statements as relate to matters
so closely connected with the events which resulted in
his death that may be said to relate to circumstances
of the transaction which resulted in his death. (LR 66
IA 66). 'Circumstances of the transaction which
resulted in his death' means only such facts or series
or facts which have a direct or organic relation to
death. Hence statement made by the deceased long before
the incident of murder is not admissible". (1974 CLJ
(MP) 1200).
Law of Evidence by Ratanlal & Dhirajlal (1982 Reprint)
190
Page 94
"Circumstances of the transaction; General
expressions indicating fear or suspicion whether of a
particular individual or otherwise and not directly
related to the occasion of the death are not
admissible" (LR 66 IA 66)(18 Part 234).
Page 95
"Circumstances must have some proximate relation
to the actual occurrence and must be of the transaction
which resulted in the death of the declarant. The
condition of the admissibility of the evidence is that
the cause of the declarant's death comes into question.
It is not necessary that statement must be made after
the transaction has taken place or that the person
making it must be near death or that the 'circumstance'
can only include the acts done when and where the death
was caused. -Dying declarations are admissible under
this clause".
The alleged oral statements of Manju and what she has
stated in her letters, Exs 30, 32 and 33 may relate to
matters perhaps having a very remote bearing on the cause or
the circumstances of her death. Those circumstances do not
have any proximate relation to the actual occurrence
resulting in her death due to potassium cyanide poison,
though, as for instance in the case of prolonged poisoning
they may relate to dates considerably distant from the date
of the actual fatal dose. They are general impressions of
Manju indicating fear or suspicion. whether of a particular
individual or otherwise and not directly related to the
occasion of her death. It is not the case of the prosecution
that the present case is one of prolonged poisoning. Since
it is stated by the learned authors woodroffe and Amir Ali
in their tratise at page 947 that the decision of their
Lordships of the Privy Council in Pakala Narayanaswami v.
Emperor (1) sets the limit of the matters that could
legitimately be brought within the purview of the expression
'circumstances of the transaction and that decision is
referred to in several other decisions of our courts, it
would be necessary to extract the relevant passage in this
judgment. The learned Lords have observed at pages 75 and 76
thus:
"A variety of questions has been mooted in the Indian
courts as to the effect of this section. It has been
suggested that the statement must be made after the
transaction has
191
taken place, that the person making it must be at any
rate near death, that the "circumstances" can only
include the acts done when and where the death was
caused. Their Lordships are of opinion that the natural
meaning of the words used does not convey any of these
limitations. The statement may be made before the cause
of death has arisen, or before the deceased has any
reason to anticipate being killed. The circumstances
must be circumstances of the transaction: general
expression indicating fear of suspicion whether of a
particular individual or otherwise and not directly
related to the occasion of the death will not be
admissible. But statements made by the deceased that he
was proceeding to the spot where he was in fact killed,
or as to his reasons for so proceeding, or that he was
going to meet a particular person, or that he had been
invited by such person to meet him would each of them
be circumstances of the transaction, and would be so
whether the person was unknown, or was not the person
accused. Such a statement might indeed be exculapatory
of the person accused. "Circumstances of the
transaction" is a phrase no doubt that conveys some
limitations. It is not as broad as the analogous use in
"circumstantial evidence" which includes evidence of
all relevant facts. It is on the other hand narrower
than "re gestae" Circumstances most have some proximate
relation to the actual occurrence: though, as for
instance in a case of prolonged poisoning, they may be
related to dates at a considerable distance from the
date of the actual fatal dose."
I am, therefore of the opinion that the oral evidence
of these witnesses, P.Ws. 2, 3, 5, 6 and 20 about what Manju
is alleged to have told them against the appellant and or
his parents and what the has stated in her letters, Exs. 30
32 and 33, are inadmissible in evidence under s.32(1) of the
Evidence Act and cannot be looked into for any purpose. At
this stage. it may be stated that Mr. Ram Jethmalani,
learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the said
oral evidence of those five witnesses is inadmissible under
s. 32(1) though at first he sought to rely upon the letters,
Exs 30, 32 and 33 which seem to lend support to the defence
theory that it may be a case of suicide, he ultimately
conceded that what applies to the relative oral evidence of
P.Ws. 2, 3, 5, 6 and 20 would equally apply to the letters,
Exs. 30, 32 and 33 and that they too would be inadmissible
192
in evidence. The Additional Solicitor General who had
strongly relied upon the said oral evidence of these five
witnesses and the letters, Exs. 30, 32 and 33 at first
proceeded in the end of his arguments on the basis that they
are inadmissible in evidence. In these circumstances, I am
firmly of the opinion that the oral evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3,
5, 6 and 20 about what Manju is alleged to have told them
against the appellant and or his parents as well as the
letters, Exs. 32, 32 and 33 are inadmissible in evidence
under s. 32(1) of the Evidence Act.
About Dr. Banerji (P.W. 33) who conducted autopsy on
the body of Manju what my learned brother Fazal Ali, J. has
said in his judgment is this:
"In column 5 of postmortem notes Dr. Banerjee has
clearly written 'can be a case of suicidal death' which
indicates that in the absence of the report of the
Chemical Examiner he was of the opinion that it could
have been a case of suicide. In his evidence P.W 33 has
stated that in Ex. 128 in column No. 5 the contents
scored out read 'time since the death' and since it was
repeated in the next line he scored out the words in
the second line. Despite persistent cross-examination
the Doctor appears to have stuck to his stand. It
cannot, therefore, be gainsaid that this matter was of
vital importance and expected the High Court to have
given serious attention to this aspect which goes in
favour of the accused.... In the original while filling
up the said column the Doctor appears to have scored
out something. The filled up entry appears thus:-'mouth
is closed with tip (something scored out) seen caught
between the teeth. But in the carbon copy of the report
which was sent to the Chemical Examiner (Ex. 132 he has
written 'caught between the teeth' in ink; but in the
original there is something else. This is fortified by
the fact that the copy of the report actually sent to
the Chemical Examiner does not contain any
interpolation against the 'said column where the filled
up entry reads 'inside mouth'.. These circumstances
show that Dr. Banerjee (P.W.33) tried to introduce some
additional facts regarding the position of the tongue .
. . This, however, throws a cloud of doubt on the
correctness or otherwise of the actual reports written
by him and the one that was sent to the Chemical
Examiner. It is obvious that in the carbon copy which
was retained by the Doctor
193
the entries must have been made after the copy was sent
to the Chemical Examiner".
I entirely agree with these findings of my learned
brother Fazal Ali, J. But I am unable to share his view that
these "circumstances are not of much consequence the opinion
of the Doctor was that Manju died by forcible administration
of potassium cyanide or by the process of mechanical
suffocation and that this aspect need not detain the Court
any further because the High Court has not accepted the case
of mechanical suffocation" and that though a number of
comments were made on behalf of the appellant about Dr.
Banerji's integrity and incorrect report he does not find
any substance in those contentions subject to what he has
stated about him.
The fact that the High Court has rejected the case of
the prosecution based on Dr. Banerji's report and evidence
that it was also a case of mechanical suffocation is not one
that could be taken into consideration as a mitigating
circumstance in judging the conduct of the Doctor who had
conducted the autopsy in a case of suspicious death. The
fact that he had reserved his opinion about the cause of
death and had then noted in his report that the tongue was
inside the mouth but has interpolated the words 'mouth is
closed with tip (something scored out) seen caught between
the teeth' and 'caught between the teeth' only after receipt
of the Chemical Examiner's report to support the view that
it was also a case of mechanial suffocation, is not a
mitigating circumstance in favour of P: W. 33 The Doctor had
scored out the words 'can be a case of suicidal death' and
has persisted in his reply that he had scored out only the
words 'time since the death' which he claims to have written
twice, which explanation has been rightly rejected by my
learned brother Fazal Ali. J. The conduct of the Doctor in
making these later inter polations and alterations in the
records of the postmortem examination in the case of
suspicious death in which the appellant has been sentenced
to death by the two courts below, deserves serious
condemnation. The Doctor has tampered with material evidence
in the case of alleged murder, may be at the instance of
somebody else, ignoring the probable consequences of his
act. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that Dr.
Banerji (P.W.33) is a person who should not be entrusted
with any serious and responsible work such as conducting
autopsy in the public interest. In this case the appellant
would have gone to gallows on the basis of the evidence of
P.W.33 as he would have the
194
court to believe it, and theo ther evidence, if they had
been accepted, but they have been rightly discarded by my
learned brother Fazal Ali, J. as unworthy of acceptance
against the appellant.
I agree with my learned brother Fazal Ali, J. that the
High Court has clearly misdirected itself on many points in
appreciating the evidence and has thus committed a gross
error of law.
I feel that something has to be stated in the judgment
in this case about the way the Investigating officer and the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune who had tried the
case had gone about a their business. Charge No. 3 is
against the third accused for instigating Mohan Asava (P.W.
30) to give false information to the police regarding the
offence of murder namely, that the appellant found Manju
dead when he tried to wake her up at 5.30 a.m. on 12.6.1982.
It is the case of the prosecution itself that P.W.30
informed the police accordingly at 7 or 7.15 a.m. on that
day after receipt of telephonic instructions from the third
accused at 6.30 a.m. though he had himself seen the dead
body of Manju earlier in the appellant's flat where he was
taken by the third accused who had gone to his flat at about
4 or 4.15 a.m. and informed him that Manju was dead, and he
(P.W.30) left the appellant's flat a little later at about 5
or 5.15 a. m. after telling Dr. Lodha (P.W. 34) that he was
going to report to the police. Thus, it would appear that
the case of the prosecution itself is that P.W. 30 is the
principal offender as regards giving false information to
the police about the death of Manju. Yet the Investigating
officer had not filed any charge-sheet against P.W. 30 but
has conveniently treated him as a prosecution witness. The
Additional Sessions Judge, Pune appears to have exercised no
control over the evidence that was tendered in this case and
to have been oblivious of the scope of the examination of
the accused under. s. 313 Cr. P.C. This is reflected by some
of the questions put to the appellant. Question No. 24
relates to P.W. 20 not maintaining good health and falling
ill now and then. Question No. 25 relates to P.W. 22 being a
patient of high blood pressure and having suffered a stroke
of paralysis 7 years earlier. Question No. 30 relates to a
reception held at Pune on 13.2.1982 in connection with the
appellant's marriage with Manju. Question No. 32 relates to
P.W. 6 asking the appellant's father Birdhichand for
permission to take Manju to Beed with her when the party
from P.W.2's side started from Pune for Beed on 14.2.1982.
Question No. 115 relates to P.W.30 indulging in criminal
acts of rowdyism, tax evasion etc, and being known as a
contact-man of the police. S. 313 Cr. P. C.
195
lays down that in every inquiry or trial for the purpose of
enabling the accused personally to explain any circumstance
appearing in the evidence against him the Court may at any
stage, without previously warning the accused, put such
questions to him as the court considers necessary and shall,
after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined
and before he is called for his defence, question him
generally on the case. It is clear that the evidence on the
basis of which the above questions have been put to the
appellant is wholly irrelevant and that those questions do
not relate to any circumstance appearing in the evidence
against the appellant. The learned Additional Sessions Judge
was bound to exercise control over the evidence being
tendered in his court and to know the scope of the
examination of the accused under s. 313 Cr. P. C.
In the end, as I said earlier, I agree with my learned
brother Fazal Ali, J. that the appeal has to be allowed.
Accordingly I allow the appeal and set aside the conviction
and sentence awarded to the appellant and direct him to be
set at liberty forthwith.
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. I have the advantage of having
read the judgments prepared by my learned brothers Fazal
Ali, J. and Varadarajan, J. I agree with the order proposed
that the appeal should be allowed and the judgments of the
courts below should be set aside and the appellant Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda be acquitted of the charges framed against
him and he should be released forth with. I do so with some
hesitation and good deal of anxiety, because that would be
interfering with the concurrent findings by two courts below
on a pure appreciation of facts. The facts and circumstances
have been exhaustively and very minutely detailed in the
judgment of my learned Brother Fazal Ali, J. Those have also
been set out to certain extent by my Brother Varadarajan, J.
It will therefore serve no useful purpose to repeat these
here. It is necessary, however, for me to make the following
observations.
It is a case of circumstantial evidence. It is also
undisputed that the deceased died of potassium cyanide on
the night of 11th and 12th June. 13th June was the date
fixed for the betrothal of the sister of the accused. There
is no evidence that the accused was in any way hostile or
inamicable towards his sister. The deceased had a very
sensitive mind and occasionally had suffered from mental
depression partly due to the fact of adjusting in a new
family and partly due to her peculiar mental make up but
mainly perhaps due to the family set up of the accused
husband. There is no direct
196
evidence of administering poison. There is no evidence
either way that either the deceased or the accused had in
her or his possession any potassium cyanide. In these
circumstances my learned brothers, in view of the entire
evidence and the letters and other circumstances, have come
to the conclusion that the guilt of the accused has not
proved beyond all reasonable doubt.
As I have mentioned before, I have read the two
judgments by my two learned brothers and on some points
namely, four points mentioned in the judgment prepared by my
Brother Varadarajan. J., he has expressed views different
from those expressed by Fazal Ali, J. and these are:-
(1) ill-treatment of Manju by the appellant;
(2) intimacy of the appellant with Ujwala (P.W.37);
(3) admissibility of Manju's letters Exs. 30, 32 and
33 and the oral evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3, 5, 6 and
20 about the alleged complaints made by Manju
against the appellant under s.32(1) of the
Evidence Act; and
(4) conduct of Dr. Banerji (P.W.33) who had conducted
autopsy on the body of Manju.
On the three points, namely ill-treatment of Manju by
the appellant, intimacy of the appellant with Ujwala
(P.W.37) and the conduct of Dr. Banerji (P.W.33) who had
conducted autopsy on the body of Manju, I would prefer the
views expressed by my learned brother Fazal Ali, J. On the
question of admissibility of Manju's letters Exs. 30, 32 and
33 and the oral evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3, 5, 6 and 20 about
the alleged complaints made by Manju against the accused
under section 32(1) of the Evidence Act, my learned brother
Fazal Ali, J. has observed about section 32(1) as follows:-
"The test of proximity cannot be too literally
construed and practically reduced to a cut-end-dried
formula of universal application so as to be confined
in a straitjacket. Distance of time would depend or
vary with the circumstances of each case. For instance,
where death is a logical culmination of a continuous
drama long in process and is, as it were, a finale of
the story, the statement regarding each step directly
connected with the end of the drama
197
would be admissible because the entire statement would
have to be read as an organic whole and not torn from
the context. Sometimes statements relevant to or
furnishing an immediate motive may also be admissible
as being a part of the transaction of death. It is
manifest that all these statements come to light only
after the death of the deceased who speaks from death.
For instance, where the death takes place within a very
short time of the marriage or the distance of time is
not spread over more than 3-4 months the statement may
be admissible under s.32." (Emphasis by me).
I would, however, like to state here that this approach
should be taken with great deal of caution and care and
though I respectfully agree with Fazal Ali, J. that the test
of proximity cannot and should not be too literally
construed and be reduced practically to a cut-and-dried
formula of universal application but it must be emphasised
that whenever it is extended beyond the immediate, it should
be the exception and must be done with very great caution
and care. As a general proposition, it cannot be laid down
for all purposes that for instance where a death takes place
within a short time of marriage and the distance of time is
not spread over three or four months, the statement would be
admissible under section 32 of the Evidence Act. This is
always not so and cannot be so. In very exceptional
circumstances like the circumstances in the present case
such statements my be admissible and that too not for
proving the positive fact but as an indication of a negative
fact, namely raising some doubt about the guilt of the
accused as in this case.
For the purpose of expressing my respectful concurrence
with the views of Justice Fazal Ali, it is not necessary for
me to agree and I do not do so with all the detailed
inferences that my learned brother has chosen to draw in
respect of the several matters from the exhibits in this
case. I am also with respect not prepared to draw all the
inferences that my learned brother has chosen to draw in the
paragraph beginning with the expression "the careful perusal
of this letter revealed the following features". This my
learned brother was speaking in respect of Ex. 33. I
however, respectfully agree with my learned brother when he
says that a close analysis and ading of the letter namely
Ex. 33 clearly indicates:
198
(a) that the deceased was extremely depressed.
(b) that there was a clear tendency resulting from her
psychotic nature to end her life or commit
suicide.
Similarly I have some hesitation about the English
rendering of Ex. 32 which is letter dated 8th June, 1982
which has been set out by my learned brother and which has
been set out in his judgment which contains the expression
"I do not know why there is such a dirty atmosphere in the
house?" As the original letter was read out in Court and we
had the advantage of that, I am inclined to take the view
that the correct and the more expressive expression would be
"I do not know why there is such a foul atmosphere in the
house?" Read in that light and in the context of other
factors, this letter causes some anxiety. It the deceased
was sensing foul atmosphere, why was it? But this again is
only a doubt. It does not prove the guilt of the accused.
In view of the fact that this is a case of
circumstantial evidence and further in view of the fact that
two views are possible on the evidence on record, one
pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other his
innocence, the accused is entitled to have the benefit of
one which is favourable to him. In that view of the matter I
agree with my learned brothers that the guilt of the accused
has not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt.
In the premises as indicated before, I agree with the
order propose
Appeal allowed.