Brij Lal vs State

K. N. Seth, J.—Brij Lal and his mother Smt. Manjhari have been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life under section 302, I.P.C. on the charge of having committed the murder of Smt. Shantii Devi wife of Brij Lal by internationally administering poison to her in Sharbat at about 7.00 a.m. on 30th June, 1969.

The case set up by the prosecution was that Smt. Shanti Devi, due to mal treatment meted to her by the accused, left the house of her by the husband about a year before the occurrence and began to live with her father Khakhanu. About six months later Brij Lal came to the house of his fatherinlaw and as a result of a community Panchayat in which he tendered apology. Khakhanu persuaded his daughter to go with her husband and accordingly she came back with Brij Lal to his house and again started living with him. However, the husband and the motherinlaw continued to ill treat her. The prosecution case further was that on 30th June, 1969 at out 8.00 a.m. Sheo Ram Kunbi, a resident of the complainant''s village Chamaon, happened to pass through village Parmanandpur where the accused resided. He was called by Shanti and was told by her that her husband and her motherinlaw something in the Sharbat and gave it to her as a result of which she was feeling giddy. She requested Sheo Ram to send her father to her. On receiving this information Khakhanu along with his wife, Sukhu Prasad (P. W. 2), Mewa Lal, (P. W. 4), Hari Charan Singh (P. W. 6) and a couple of other persons went to Parmanandpur and found Smt. Shanti already dead. The two accused were making arrangement to take away the dead body far cremation. He stopped them from, doing so. How as told by villagers that before her death Smt. Shanti had told some of them that she was feeling disturbed and would not survive. Khakhanu lodged a report at police station Baragaon, twelve miles away, at 12.20 p.m. the same day.

Kameshwar Rai, SubInspector, (P.W. 8) proceeded to the house of the accused found the dead body of Shanti in front of the house wrapped in a cloth ready of cremation. After holding request the dead body was sent for postmortem examination which was conducted the next day at 4.03 p.m. by Dr. R. K. Srivastava. The medical examination disclosed that blood was coming out from the mouth and nose and the tongue was protrudding. The lips and nailshad became black. The brain, lungs, liver, spleen and kidneys were decomposing. The doctor could not ascertain the cause and manner of death and hence he preserved the viscera which was forwarded to the Chemical Examiner for analysis. The Chemical Examiner detected barbiturate in the portions of viscera of the stomach, intestine, liver with gallsbladder, kidney and spleen. Along with viscera a sample of spirit in a sealed thial and oily drops in a sealed bottle were also sent to the Chemical Examiner for analysis. Barbiturate was not noticed in these two items and organo phosphorus in secticide was detected in the oily drops only but not in the portions of viscera and other items like blood stained and simple earth:

The accused pleaded not guilty and alleged false implication due to enmity. Brij Lal pleaded that he had kept insecticide in his house for plant protection and it was just possible that the deceased had taken some thing contaminated by it. He further pleaded that his fatherinlaw wanted the deceased to manage his affairs at his house but since she did not keep good health he ''was not prepared to allow her to do so and on that account the fatherinlaw was displeased with him. He denied that he maltreated his wife. Smt. Manjharia also denied the prosecution case and alleged that she had been falsely implicated.

There can be no manner of doubt that Shanti Devi died as a result of poisoning. The condition of the body as revealed in the postmortem examination coupled with the report of the Chemical examiner leave no room for doubt that Smt. Shanti Devi met an unnatural death due to poisoning. The only question for consideration is whether poison was administered to her by the accused or it may have been taken by herself.

The motive for the murder suggested by the prosecution was that the deceased was illtreated by her husband and her motherinlaw and she was so fed up that a year before the occurrence she started living with her father. The prosecution evidence further was that Brij Lal apologised before village Panchayat and promised to treat her well and it was on the assurrance that Khakhanu pursuaded his daughter to go and live at her husband''s place again. Khakhanu (P. W. 1), and Sukhu (P. W. 3) and Mewa Lal (P. W. 4) deposed to that effect. No witness of village Parmanandpur has been examined in this behalf. Assuming that the deceased was not treated well by her husband and his mother that would not necessarily lead to the conclusion that these two committed the murder by administering poison. That circumstance equally fits in with the theory of suicide by Shanti Devi for she might have decided to take her own life in such a situation.

In order to establish that Shanti was administered poison by the accused the prosecution examined Sheo Ram (P. W. 2) who deposed that on the day in question he had been to his Sasural and from there he went to in Block to enquire about fertiliser and while coming back to his village, he passed through Parmanandpur at about 7.00 a.m. He has called by Shanti, who was in front of her house, and told that her husband and her motherinlaw had mixed something in Sharbat and made her to take it as a result of which she was feeling giddy. She asked the witness to sand her father to her. In crossexamination the witness admitted that he had not personally seen the accused Brij Lal illtreating his wife. It further appears that Parmanandpur did not fall on the normal route to his village. He admitted that while going to his Sasural, he did not go through Parmanandpur and that he had to work in Parmanandpur. Obviously Sheo Ram was a chance witness. In the court of the Committing Magistrate he had stated that he had never been to Brij Lai''s house before. If this witness had no work in Parmanandpur and it did not fall on the normal route to his village, we are not inclined to accept his assertion that he went to village Parmanandpur and there he was told by Smt. Shanti and she had been administered some thing by the accused. According to the prosecution it was Sheo Ram who conveyed the information regarding the condition of the deceased to her father and thereupon the father along with a number of other persons arrived in village Parmanandpur and found that the accused were making preparation to take the dead body of Shanti for cremation. It appears more probable that the news of Shanti''s death reached Khakhanu through some other source, and, as the news was wholly unexpected, he reached there along with his wife and some other persons. It is significant that although the name of Sheo Ram was disclosed in the First Information Report itself, he was interrogated by the Investigation Officer 1718 days later as admitted by the witness himself although his village was only 341/2 miles away from Parmanandpur. After carefully considering the testimony of Sheo Ram we do not find it possible to place any reliance on him.

Once Sheo Rani''s testimony is discarded, the testimony of other prosecution witnesses, namely, Khakhanu (P. W. 1), Sukhu (P. W. 3), Mewal Lal, (P. W. 4) and Hari Charan Singh (P. W. 6) can be of no assistance to the prosecution for they all claimed to have derived knowledge about the cause of 4path of Shanti through Sheo Ram. It is indeed surpising that not a single witness of village Parmanandpur has been produced by the prosecution. If it were to be accepted that after being administered poison, Shanti was left alone in the house and was free to move about she would have in normal course disclose her condition to the residents of the village as she is claimed by the prosecution to have disclosed it to Sheo Ram. It also appears improbable that after administering poison to her the accused would have, instead of locking her inside a room, allowed her to move freely. In normal course they would have taken full precaution that the victim did not come in contact with others and did not disclose their criminal deed to any one. Possibility cannot be ruled out that the deceased herself either deliberately or accidentally took poison while her husband and the motherinlaw are away from the house. Even if it be accepted that the conduct of the accused in not conveying the information about suicide to the police authorities or to the father of the deceased, although the accused claimed they did so, may not be legally justified but that conduct cannot be said to be wholly unnatural. Even in a case of suicide normally avoid information to the police as that creates a lot of complication which people naturally wish to avoid.

On a consideration of the material on record we are not satisfied that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The possibility of Shanti Devi''s committing suicide cannot be totally ruled out. In such a situation the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt.

In the result the appeal is allowed. The conviction of the appellants is set aside. They are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are discharged.