1984 (7) TMI 401 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Ill-treatment of Manju by the Appellant
2. Intimacy of the Appellant with Ujwala (P.W.37)
3. Admissibility of Manju's Letters and Oral Evidence under s.32(1) of the Evidence Act
4. Conduct of Dr. Banerji (P.W.33) who conducted the autopsy on Manju

Summary:

1. Ill-treatment of Manju by the Appellant:
The defense admitted a strong possibility of Manju being ill-treated and uncared for by her husband and in-laws, leading her to commit suicide out of sheer depression and frustration. However, no specific questions regarding ill-treatment were put to the appellant during his examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C. The court noted that the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3, 5, 6, and 20 about ill-treatment was inadmissible under s.32(1) of the Evidence Act. The High Court did not find any ill-treatment by the appellant or his parents.

2. Intimacy of the Appellant with Ujwala (P.W.37):
The prosecution alleged that the appellant had illicit intimacy with Ujwala, which embittered the relationship between him and Manju. The evidence of P.Ws. 3, 5, and 6 regarding this intimacy was rejected as untrustworthy. It was also noted that there was no mention of Ujwala in Manju's letters (Exs. 30, 32, and 33). The court concluded that there was no reliable evidence to prove the alleged intimacy.

3. Admissibility of Manju's Letters and Oral Evidence under s.32(1) of the Evidence Act:
The court examined whether the oral evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3, 5, 6, and 20, and Manju's letters (Exs. 30, 32, and 33) were admissible under s.32(1) of the Evidence Act. It was held that these statements did not relate to the cause of Manju's death or any circumstances of the transaction that resulted in her death. The statements were considered general expressions indicating fear or suspicion and were not directly related to the occasion of her death. Therefore, they were deemed inadmissible.

4. Conduct of Dr. Banerji (P.W.33) who conducted the autopsy on Manju:
Dr. Banerji's conduct was scrutinized for making interpolations in the postmortem report. The court found that Dr. Banerji had scored out the words "can be a case of suicidal death"� and made other alterations after receiving the Chemical Examiner's report. This was seen as an attempt to support the prosecution's case of mechanical suffocation. The court condemned Dr. Banerji's conduct and noted that his actions cast doubt on the correctness of the postmortem reports.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The appellant was acquitted of the charges framed against him, and the judgments of the lower courts were set aside. The appellant, Sharad Birdhichand Sarda, was directed to be released and set at liberty forthwith.