Shrimati Raj Dulari vs The State

Dua, J.—Raj Dulari has appealed to this Court against her conviction u/s 302, Indian Penal Code, and the sentence of imprisonment for life imposed upon her by the learned Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, for causing the death of her husband Rajinder Singh by administering poison to him. It may here be mentioned that along with Raj Dulari, her daughter Surjit Kaur and one Banarsi Dass were also tried u/s 120-B and 302, Indian Penal Code. One Madan Lal, who was alleged to have been a Co-conspirator, became an approver and actually appeared at the trial as a prosecution witness.

The prosecution story is that Raj Dulari, a Communist worker, was married to Rajinder Singh deceased about 15 years ago. They used to reside at Dera Baba Nanak. Banarsi Dass accused used to run a shop at Dera Baba Nanak and Madan Lal approver used to supply medicines to Banarsi Dass and other Vaids in the same town. Madan Lal was an agent of Ashok Pharmacy, Amritsar, Rajinder Singh deceased used to sell medicines as a hawker on the licence of Banarsi Dass, who also used to reside in the same house in which Rajinder Singh and his family resided. As a matter of fact, Banarsi Dass is stated to be a close friend of Rajinder Singh. Madan Lal also became friendly with both Banarsi Dass and Rajinder Singh deceased and indeed on occasions he used to stay at Rajinder Singh''s house when visiting Dera Baba Nanak. Rajinder Singh was auspicious of Raj Dulari''s character and used to suspect her of illicit intimacy with Banarsi Dass. On account of this suspicion, he used to mal-treat her with the result that the relations between the husband and the wife became strained. In the beginning of 1960, Raj Dularis stated even to have left her husband''s house on account of mal-treatment when she started living with her brother at Batala. After some time, the differences between the husband and the wife were patched up on the intervention of the Bedi brotherhood at Dera Baba Nanak. Rajinder Singh, it may be stated, was Bedi by caste. This reconciliation took place in the month of Bhadon when she again started living will her husband. But unfortunately it was not long when again their, relations became strained. On 2nd November, 1960, at about 8 O''clock in the evening, Rajinder Singh, according to the prosecution version, quarrelled with his wife and after taking his meals went down-stairs and slept in the deohri. He is stated to have died on the night between 2nd and 3rd of November, 1960. At about 11:45 p.m. on the night between 2nd and 3rd of November, 1980, Raj Dulari, lodged a report with the police that her husband Rajinder Singh, who used to sell tooth powder and surma in various cities and melas, had returned that evening from Majitha by a train which arrived at Dera Baba Nanak at about 7.30 p.m. and reached the house at 8 p.m. According to her, he seemed to have taken liquor and also had a dona of bhala and pakorian. Raj Dulari had prepared mixed dal of mungi and masar. After taking meals, Raj Dulari and Rajinder Singh agan quarrelled and the latter taking his quilt went down-stairs. She followed him but he in return abused her and said that she would weep for ever Raj Dulari came up-stairs and after about an hour or so, on hearing the groans, she sent Surjit Kaur to see the deceased as he used to suffer from epilepsy. Surjit came back and informed her mother that her father was taking groans. Raj Dulari thought that her husband had a fit of epilepsy. Thereupon, Raj Dulari went to inform her mother, to whose house she went via Mandi, and after informing her about Rajinder Singh''s condition brought her back to her own house. On arrival there, they found that Rajinder Singh had died. According to this report, Surjit had been left at the house and Raj Dulari along with her mother and Kishan Singh had gone to lodge the report. Raj Dulari also stated there that earlier about a couple of years alter their marriage also, Rajinder Singh had attempted to commit suicide due to domestic disharmony as a result of which he was arrested and challaned. It further appears from this report that Raj Dulari had two daughters and two sons from Rajinder Singh, the eldest daughter being Surjit about 14 years old. As a result of this report, an inquest was held and on 3rd November 1960, Shri Hari Chand, Assistant Sub-Inspector, police station Dera Baba Nanak, reported that there was a rumour of suicide by Rajinder Singh. During the inquest it appears that Bedi Kishan Singh, Bedi Gurdial Singh, President Municipal Committee, Sodhi Harbans Singh, Sodhi Harcharan Singh, Madan Lal son of Tnakur Dass Brahmin, Amin Chand, father of Raj Dulari, Smt. Gianb, mother of Raj Dulari and Charanjit Singh, son of the deceased, were present near the dead body. There were also present some constables.

Dr. Mohinder Singh, Incharge Civil Hospital, Batala, performed the past mortem examination on the dead body of Rajinder Singh on 4th November 1960 at about 3 p.m. and the Chemical Examiner to the Punjab Government examined the contents of the stomach and the small and large intestines and found 473 mgms of strychnine in the stomach and 112 mgms of strychnine in the small and large intestines. Alcohol was also found in the contents of the stomach and intestines.

On 10th November, 1960, Harcharan Singh Vice-President of Dera Baba Nanak Municipality, went to the house of Raj Dulari for offering condolences. Shortly after his arrival. Dr. Himmat Singh P.W.3 and Desa Singh P.W.4 also arrived there for the same purpose. It was on this occasion that Raj Dulari appellant is stated to have suo motu disclosed to them that she was responsible for causing the death of her husband and that she may be saved from further complications. She is stated to have made an oral confession there disclosing the manner in which having been fed up with her husband, she administered poison to him in liquor after taking it from the medicine, box of Rajinder Singh. This Oral confession is contained in the testimony of Harcharan Singh P.W.2, Dr. Himmat Singh P.W.3 and Desa Singh P.W.4. Madan Lal P.W.1 was granted pardon and made approver. According to his testimony, Banarsi Dass accused had developed illicit relations with Raj Dulari before his own contact with them. Later on, he also claims to have developed illict connections with the lady. This fact, according to the approver, was within the knowledge of Rajinder Singh, as a result of which he used to beat her occasionally. Surjit Kaur, daughter of Rajinder Singh, used, on these occasions, to side with her mother and she too used to be administered beating whenever she intervened. According to this approver''s testimony, Banarsi Dass had some time in January, 1960, left Dera Baba Nanak and shifted to Amritsar where hie started a shop in Mohalla Harpur. Madan Lal used to live in Katra Baghian at Amritsar. Banarsi Dass and Madan Lal used to meet Raj Dulari at Batala also. In August, 1960, Raj Dulari went to Amritsar and lived with her sister Smt. Kailash in Katra Baghian. Madan Lal used to live near her house. One day, Raj Dulari took Madan Lal to Banarsi Dass''s shop and there she complained to them that her father and brother were compelling her to go back to her husband''s house. She, in a taunting manner, said that what was the use of their friendship if they could not help her on this occasion. She suggested to them that they should give her some poison which she may administer to her husband and "finish the matter once for all". Banarsi Dass and Madan Lal suggested to her that she should go to her husband''s house at least once and that if he were again to mal-treat her, she should write to them. They would then give her some poison which she may administer to her husband after mixing it with liquor, as her husband was addicted to drinking. After this, she went away to Dera Baba Nanak. About five or seven days after Diwali, Madan Lal went to Banarsi Dass''s shop where be was informed about the receipt of a letter from Raj Dulari in which she had complained of mal-treatment at the hands of her husband. Banarsi Dass thereupon gave a glass phial to Madan Lal containing some poison. Banarsi Dass''s instructions were that after administering some of the poison to Rajinder Singh, by mixing it with liquor, she should place the phial containing the remnants in Rajinder Singh''s medicine box. Madan Lal went to Dera Baba Nanak the same day and handed over the phial to Raj Dulari, who was sitting in her deohri along with her daughter Surjit Kaur. Madan Lal conveyed Banarsi Dass''s instructions in full detail Madan Lal again met Banarsi Dass accused some time in the middle of November, 1960, when he was informed that Rajinder Singh had died as a result of the poison said to have been administered by Raj Dulari and that the police was in search of all of them and indeed had got the necessary warrants of arrests issued. On 23rd November 1960, Madan Lal went to Dera Baba Nanak and. narrated the whole occurrence to Piara Lal Chopra and Waryam Singh Lambardar of Village Khasan-wali. Those two persons took Madan Lal to the city police post, Dera Baba Nanak, where he again narrated the whole occurrence and was takes in custody. On 5th December, 1960, he was produced before the Dittrict Magistrate Gurdaspur, where he expressed his willingness to state the truth on the condition of being tendered a pardon.

It is thus obvious that the direct evidence consists of the oral confession said to have been made by Raj Dulari and deposed to by Harcharan Singh P.W.2, Dr. Himmat Singh, P.W.3 and Desa Singh P.W.4, and the statement by Madan Lal approver. It may here be stated that this alleged extra-judicial confession has been retracted by Raj Dulari. The learned Sessions Judge has not placed any reliance on the testimony of Madan Lal approver and has also discounted the testimony of Piara Lal, P.W.25, and Waryam Singh, P.W.26. Discrediting the approver''s testimony, both Banarsi Dass and Surjit Kaur have been acquitted. The conviction has been based only on the retracted extra-judicial confession said to have been made by Raj Dulari and deposed to by Harcharan Singh, Dr. Himmat Singh and Desa Singh. Corroboration for this confession has been sought by the Court from the conduct of Raj Dulari on noticing that her husband had died on the night of 2nd November, 1960. According to the Court below, she would in the natural course of conduct have felt aggrieved and should have wept and cried on her husband''s death, but instead she quietly went out through the back door to her mother''s house and after bringing her to her own house and after seeing her husband dead, she went to the police station and lodged the report of alleged suicide by her husband.

In this Court, the learned counsel for the appellant has taken us through the entire evidence and has submitted that the extra-judicial confession is not only unsafe on the facts and circumstances of this case to base a conviction on, but is also highly unlikely. In so far as the conduct of the appellant goes, it has been stressed that there being no love lost between the husband and the wife, it could hardly be expected of her to feel very much grief-stricken. It has also been urged that on such occasions, the reaction of a person, who loses her husband, depends inter alia on individual temperament and outlook on life and that it is extremely risky to draw any inference against Raj Dulari from her conduct in the present case.

On behalf of the State, the conviction has been sought to be supported on the grounds relied upon by the Court below, namely, oral confession and the conduct of the accused appellant.

After hearing the counsel for the parties, in my opinion, this appeal deserves to be allowed. Courts, as is by now fairly well-settled, I normally insist on ascertaining the exact words of the oral confessional statement and unless exact words are clearly established, the Courts are, by and large, reluctant to base conviction thereon, for, the witnesses to oral confession may even quite honestly misunderstand or miscomprehend the effect of oral words, and there is at times a real danger of their mistakenly asserting as to an oral confession. And then the infirmity of memory or the zeal not infrequently displayed by some people in getting credit for detecting offenders, particularly in sensational cases, as also the possible disposition to exaggerate or magnify attending circumstances have all to be taken into account. These, among other factors would seem to bring out the dangerously unsatisfactory character of oral confessions. In the present case, nobody seems to have recorded the alleged oral confession at the time it is stated to have been made, and we have to depend on the bare words of the three witnesses who have taken upon themselves to prove the same.

But then Shri Salooja has contended that the witnesses who have deposed about it are respectable witnesses of status and that when they depose about the oral confession they should be implicitly believed. Let me analyse this submission. Now, Harcharan Singh, P.W.2, was actually present on 6th November 1960 when Hari Chand A.S.I. held an enquiry the the cause of Rajinder Singh''s death. The witness, however, did not care to go to see Raj Dulari on that date because, as he himself puts it, be had to go back to Beas on the morning of the 7th November, 1960 on some urgent business. Rajinder Singh had died on 2nd November 1960. P.W.2 would have us believe that as he went to the house of Raj Dulari for condolence on 10th November, 1960, she herself voluntarily made this oral confession in order to secure their help against further complications. His house is about one-and-a-half furlongs away from Rajinder Singh''s house and he did not leave Dera Baba Nanak till the morning of 7th November, 1960, having arrived there from Beas Band near Kapurthala on 6th November 1960 at about 12 noon. He did not care to go to Rajinder Singh''s house for condolences till 10th November, 1960, though in his presence Raj inder Singh''s death had been determined in the inquest report to have been due to suicide. This would seem to show the true nature of relationship between the witness and Raj Dulari and the deceased. In cross-examination he has asserted that Rajinder Singh and he used to discuss family affairs prior to this occurrence, but curiously enough again he expresses complete ignorance about Rajinder Singh having ever been challaned for attempting to commit suicide. This attempt is clearly proved on this record at page 137 of the paper book. In fact, Rajinder Singh is stated even to have taken the witness into confidence and to have told him that Raj Dulari was of loose character and that for that reason she had once before been turned out of the house. In my opinion, this witness is hardly the type on whom implicit reliance can be placed for upholding the alleged oral confession. Dr. Himmat Singh, P.W.3, is no better. This witness of course went to Rajinder Singh''s house on 3rd November, 1960 and again once or twice before 10th November, 1960. On 10th November 1960, he again went there with Desa Singh. Harcharan Singh was already present there. According to him, after they had offered condolences, Raj Dulari requested them to help her "as she had committed a mistake in administering poison to her husband". As a matter of fact, according to this witness, this request was made by her to Sodhi Harcharan Singh. The three persons promised to help her and the promised help, as we see has taken the form of prosecuting her. This witness, though claiming to be a doctor is read only up to 8th class. He, however, admits in his cross-examination that Rajinder Singh used to sell poisonous medicines as well. The third witness Desa Singh, who appeared as P.W.4, is equally unsatisfactory. He too went to the house of Rajinder Singh on 10th Novermber 1960 to offer condolences with Dr. Himmat Singh. Sodhi Harcharan Singh was already there. According to this witness, Rajinder Singh used to tell him about his own family affairs because the witness was a Municipal Commissioner. He claims that the deceased was an intimate friend of his, but again curiously enough, though Rajinder Singh had died on 2nd November 1960, till 10th.November, 1960, he could not find time to go to the house of Raj Dulari for offering condolences. It is noteworthy that in cross-examination he has stated that Dr. Himmat Singh had told him that he (Dr. Himmat Singh) could not go to the house of Raj Dulari to offer condolences prior to that date (i.e. 10th November 1960), whereas Dr. Himmat Singh himself has expressly stated that he had gone to the house of Rajinder Singh on 3rd November 1960 and also once or twice between 2nd and 10th of November, 1960. The evidence of these witnesses is wholly unimpressive and I am unable to persuade myself to uphold the alleged oral extra-judicial confession said to have been made by Raj Dulari before these three persons.

Now, once this oral extra-judicial confession is ruled out, nothing remains on the record to sustain the appellants conviction. The State counsel has, however, urged that the appellant''s conduct furnishes a very strong corroborative piece of evidence which should induce us to believe the oral confession. I regret ray inability to uphold this submission Raj Dulari''s conduct by no means suggests any guilty conscience, but in any case even if her conduct was to be considered to be somewhat abnormal, I do not think it is possible to hold that she had poisoned her husband. The conduct relied upon is her omission to display grief on her husband''s death and the manner in which she informed her mother and also the repot t of suicide by her husband lodged by her.

As no attempt has been made to rely on the approver''s testimony which, strictly speaking, is not in accord with the alleged oral confession, I need say nothing about it.

It has also been urged on behalf of the appellant by Shri Mahajan that keeping in view the bitter taste of strychnine, the quantity found in the stomach and intestines etc. of the deceased suggests that such a large quantity could not have been administered to the deceased the way it has been described. The contention is not without merit but in view of my finding given above, I need not pursue this aspect any further.

The learned counsel for the appellant made a reference to a decision of the Supreme Court in Govinda Reddy and Krishna and Another Vs. State of Mysore, , where it is stated that circumstantial evidence in order to sustain a conviction should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and that such hypothesis must be reasonable. This is very well-established principle and I do not think any authority is needed in its support. In the present case, however, there is no question of any circumstantial evidence. If the extra-judicial oral confession is believed, then it is direct evidence and if we disbelieve it, there is no cogent piece of evidence in support of the conviction. Raj Dulari''s conduct seems to me to be far from incriminating and even if it is considered to be so, it is clearly too insufficient a material to base the conviction on, or even to corroborate or add adequate strength to the alleged extra-judicial oral confession.

In the result, this appeal succeeds and allowing the same, I set aside the appellant''s conviction and acquit her.

Harbans Singh, J.

I agree.