2009 (5) TMI 861 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether in view of absence of some symptoms as accepted by the autopsy surgeon, death could be caused by asphyxia? Held that - Admittedly, a plastic bottle was found near the cot. It was seen by P.W. 3. However, his statement that he did not find any smell coming out from the mouth of the deceased is difficult to accept. He is not an expert. It is wholly unlikely that he having observed that death had already taken place, he would smell the mouth of the deceased. The possibility that having seen the bottle which admittedly at one point of time contained some poison, appellant s assuming that she had consumed poison and rushing to the house of the P.W. 3 who might have been in a position to make arrangement for shifting her to hospital cannot be ruled out. In so assuming, he might have committed a mistake but it is also difficult to arrive at a definite conclusion that only because a plastic bottle was found, appellant must have deliberately kept it so as to raise a false plea. We do not think that any such conclusion can be arrived at. If such a conclusion was arrived at, the same would amount to surmise and conjecture. The High Court was considering a judgment of acquittal; it set aside a part of the finding of the learned Sessions Judge. It could not have interfered with the judgment of acquittal if two views were possible. The judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, in our opinion, cannot be said to be wholly unreasonable or otherwise perverse. Circumstances brought on record by the prosecution, in our opinion, are not such which would lead to a definite conclusion that appellant and appellant alone had committed the offence. In the aforementioned situation, the High Court should have approached the case with some caution. Appeal allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Cause of death of the deceased.
2. Reliability of circumstantial evidence.
3. Validity and timing of the FIR.
4. Burden of proof and presumption of guilt.
5. Evaluation of medical evidence and expert testimony.
6. Role of the appellant and his explanation for the incident.
7. High Court's judgment versus the Sessions Judge's acquittal.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Cause of Death of the Deceased:
The post-mortem report indicated that the deceased died of asphyxia, possibly due to smothering. However, the medical evidence presented by Dr. Ranjini (P.W. 10) was inconclusive and contradictory. The symptoms typical of death by asphyxia, such as open eyes, protruding tongue, and distended face, were absent. The expert's reliance on Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology highlighted that the absence of certain symptoms could not definitively conclude death by smothering. The Sessions Judge found reasonable doubt regarding the cause of death, noting the lack of external injuries and typical signs of asphyxia.

2. Reliability of Circumstantial Evidence:
The High Court relied on circumstantial evidence, noting that the appellant and the deceased were last seen together and that the appellant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for her death. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain without any reasonable doubt. The lack of physical evidence of violence and the absence of a clear motive weakened the prosecution's case.

3. Validity and Timing of the FIR:
The FIR was lodged at 11:00 a.m., but witnesses P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 testified that the police were already present at the scene early in the morning. This discrepancy raised questions about the timing and authenticity of the FIR. The Supreme Court noted that the suppression of initial information by the prosecution cast doubt on the investigation's integrity.

4. Burden of Proof and Presumption of Guilt:
The High Court applied the principle that when a husband and wife are alone, and the wife dies under suspicious circumstances, the husband must explain her death. However, the Supreme Court reiterated that the burden of proof remains on the prosecution, and the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt if the evidence is inconclusive. The Court cited cases like Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs. State of Maharashtra and Ponnusamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu, emphasizing that the presumption of guilt must be based on solid evidence.

5. Evaluation of Medical Evidence and Expert Testimony:
The Supreme Court found the medical evidence presented by P.W. 10 to be self-contradictory and inconsistent with established medical jurisprudence. The absence of typical asphyxia symptoms and the lack of corroborative forensic evidence (e.g., no frothy fluid on the pillow) undermined the prosecution's case. The Court highlighted the importance of clear and consistent medical testimony in establishing the cause of death.

6. Role of the Appellant and His Explanation for the Incident:
The appellant claimed that he found his wife dead early in the morning and immediately informed others. He suggested that the deceased might have consumed poison, as indicated by a plastic bottle found near the cot. The Supreme Court noted that the appellant's explanation, though not fully substantiated, could not be dismissed outright. The Court emphasized that failure to prove an alibi or provide a convincing explanation does not automatically establish guilt.

7. High Court's Judgment versus the Sessions Judge's Acquittal:
The High Court overturned the Sessions Judge's acquittal based on circumstantial evidence and the appellant's failure to explain the death. However, the Supreme Court found that the High Court's judgment did not adequately consider the reasonable doubts raised by the Sessions Judge. The Supreme Court stressed that in cases of acquittal, the appellate court must exercise caution and should not interfere if two views are possible.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, reinstating the Sessions Judge's acquittal. The Court emphasized the need for conclusive evidence in criminal cases, especially when based on circumstantial evidence. The appellant was directed to be released immediately unless required in any other case.

← Previous Next →