State of Punjab vs Kabul Ram

S.S. Dewan, J.

The State of Punjab appeals against the acquittal of three respondents on the change of murder.

This appeal appears to us as singularly lacking in merit and it, therefore, suffices to make a brief reference of the facts. Indeed, it would be wasteful to traverse the same ground over again in its entirety which had been so competently covered by the learned Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, in his judgment dated the 9th October, 1981 which is under challenge.

Smt. Deepo daughter of Karam Chand alias Karma, a resident of village Mohangarwal was married to Sohan Lal accused about one year and three months prior to the present occurrence. Kabul Ram accused husband of Parkasho accused arranged that marriage. Smt. Parkasho accused is the sister of Sohan Lal accused. All the three accused lived together at Garhshanker and had a joint kitchen. It is said that during her married Life of about one year and three months. Deepo deceased visited her parents twice and on both the occasions she complained to her parents that the accused quarrelled with her as she did not bring sufficient dowry. Karam Chand informed Charan Singh and Gurmel Singh of his village about this complaint of Deepo.

The prosecution story goes that Deepo visited her parents at village Mohngarwal about two days prior to this incident and after staying for a day with her parents, she returned to her inlaws house at Garhshanker by train on March 21, 1981. On the same day at about 10 p.m. Kabul Ram and Sohan Lal accused called. Dr. Kehar Singh, a retired Senior Medical Officer who practised medicines privately after retirement and lived in the neighbourhood of the accused, to examine Deepo. Dr. Kehar Singh found that her pulse was very week and he told the said accused that he could not handle the case and advised them to take her to the hospital. Deepo died on the same night. Kabul Ram accused went to the house of Karam Chand at about 4 a.m. and informed him that Deepo was ill. Karam Chand and his wife Nandi accompanied Kabul Kam to his house at Garhshanker and they found that Deepo was lying dead. It is alleged that Kabul Ram advised Karam Chand that he should forget what had already happened and suggested that the dead body should be cremated for which the arrangements had already been made. Karam Chand suspecting foulplay, called Gurmel Singh and Charan Singh PWs from his village and his son Gian from Amritsar. While Karam Chand was going to Police Station for lodging the report, some one met him on the way and on his request he prepared a complaint (Ex.PC) for Karam Chand which was thumb marked by him and the same was then handed over to Basant Singh Assistant Sub Inspector on March 12, 1981. The case was, however, got registered in the Police Station through F.I.R. Ex.PF allegedly recorded on April 3, 1981 at about 7 P.M. Basant Singh went to the house of the accused and held inquest Ex.PB and sent the dead body of Deepo to the mortuary for autopsy. Kabul Ram and Sohan Lal accused were arrested on April 4, 1981 and Paraksho accused was arrested on April 5, 1981 by Sub Inspector Pritam Singh PW.

Rajinder Maingi PW conducted autopsy on the dead body of Deepo on March 23, 1981 at 9.30 a.m. and found the following :

"Cyanosed face, blue eyes were half open and so was the mouth. Blood stained mucous from mouth and nostrils was coming out. Nails were blue. Mucous membrane of the tongue was blue. There was no mark of injury on the dead body.

Membrance of brain and spinal cords were congested and the brain was also congested. Plaura was also congested. Mucous membrane of the larynx and trachea were congested and contained blood stained froth. Both lungs were oedematous and congested. Petechial haemorrhage was present in both the lungs. Pericardium was congested. Right side of the heart was full of blood. Liver, spleen and kidneys were congested."

Viscera of the deceased was sent to the Chemical Examiner, Patiala, to find out the cause of her death. On receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner Ex. PW, Dr. Maingi found that organo phosphorous compound (poison) was the case of death in this case. After necessary investigation, the accused were challaned and committed.

The prosecution case herein has no eyewitness and rests entirely on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses in support of its case. When examined under Section 113, Cr.P.C. the accused denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false complicity in the case but led no evidence in defence. The trial Court on the basis of the material placed before it, acquitted the accusedrespondents and hence this appeal by the State of Punjab.

Mr. H.S. Riar the learned Deputy Advocate General Punjab has vehemently contended that in this case there is sufficient circumstantial evidence completing the chain of evidence connecting the respondents with the murder of the deceased and that the respondents had a strong motive to do away with Smt. Deepo. The learned Deputy Advocate General further urged that the medical evidence is not inconsistent with the prosecution story, rather it supports the prosecution case and as such it is case in which the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on the life.

It is well settled law that the powers of the High Court in an appeal against an acquittal are not different from the powers of the same Court in hearing an appeal against a conviction. The High Court in dealing with such an appeal, can go into all questions of fact and law and reach its own conclusions on evidence provided it pays due regard to the fact that the matter had been before the Court of Session and the Sessions Judge had the chance and opportunity of seeing the witnesses deposing to the facts. Further, the High Court in examining the judgment of the Sessions Judge must pay due regard to all the reasons given by the Sessions Judge for disbelieving a particular witness and must attempt to dispel those reasons affectively before taking a contrary view of the matter. It may also be pointed out that the accused starts with a presumption of innocence when he is put up for trial and his acquittal in no sense weakens that presumption and this presumption must also receive adequate consideration from the High Court. Where the lower court has found the accused not guilty unless the conclusions reached by it are palpably wrong or based on an erroneous view of law or that its decision is likely to result in grave injustice, the High Court should be reluctant to interfere with its conclusions. If two reasons conclusions can be reached on the basis of evidence on record, then the view in support of the acquittal of the accused should be preferred. The fact that the High Court is inclined to take a different view of the evidence on record is not sufficient to interfere with the orders of acquittal vide Laxman Kalu Nikalis State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 Supreme Court 1390 and Rajendra Rai and others v. The State of Bihar and another, AIR 1974 Supreme Court 2145.

According to the decisions of the Supreme Court referred to above the appellant must prove that the decision of the trial Court on the points raised in appeal is not correct. The medical evidence points out unmistakably that Smt. Deepo had died of poison. The question for decision in the case in hand relates to the identity of the culprit or culprits who were responsible for causing the murder of Smt. Deepo. There is no direct evidence to show that the respondents were the culprits but then there is no virtue in direct evidence and a charge for any offence including that of murder can be proved by circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence means combination of facts creating a net around the accused, there being no rent through which he can possibly escape. It cannot, however, be gainsaid that no presumption is permissible in favour of any item of circumstantial evidence and that every link in the chain of circumstantial evidence has to be proved by cogent evidence.

The first item of the circumstantial evidence against the respondents is that they had the motive to murder Smt. Deepo. In support of this item, the prosecution examined Karam Chand PW9 and Smt. Nandi PW10 father and mother of the deceased respectively. They have deposed that during her two visits after her marriage with Sohan Lal accused, Smt. Deepo deceased told them that the accused had quarrlled with her for not bringing sufficient dowry and that they had informed Gurmel Singh and Charan Singh of their village about this fact. But these witnesses had nowhere stated in their statements that the accused had maltreated Smt. Deepo for that reason. It is the case of the prosecution itself that even on the day preceding the night of occurrence, Smt. Deepo was sent to her inlaws by Karam Chand and that she herself had gone there. If Smt. Deepo had been unhappy with her inlaws, she would not have gone there without protere. Karam Chand had admitted in his crossexamination that the marriage of his daughter''s has performed about 8 or 9 days earlier to the death of Smt. Deepo and that Kabul Ram and Sohan Lal accused and Smt. Deepo attended that marriage. This fact rather suggests that the accused and Smt. Deepo were having cordial relations. There is not even an allegation that any of the accused even beat or threatened to kill Smt. Deepo. Smt. Nandi, mother of the deceased, simply stated that all the three accused used to tell Smt. Deepo that she had not brought sufficient dowry and that Gurmel Singh and Charan Singh PWs were informed about the same. She did not state the accused had quarrelled with her for that reason. Gurmel Singh PW3 simply stated that about two months before the death of Smt. Deepo, Karam Chand told him that three accused were not treating Smt. Deepo well because she had not brought sufficient dowry but due to personal work he could not accompany Karam Chand to Garhshanker to contact the accused in that connection. This witness has, however, admitted in his crossexamination that the police had recorded his statement after 12/13 days of the death of Smt. Deepo. If the matter was so serious, then Gurmel Singh and Charan Singh PWs would have accompanied Karam Chand for a protest with the accused but even Karam Chand did not state that he ever protested of the accused for the alleged maltreatment to the deceased. In these circumstances, the motive as attributed to the respondents by the prosecution is not per se evidence of their culpability because of the fact that the very case was founded and conceived in a sitting which to our mind is not above suspicion. In this state of affairs, we find it difficult to hold on the basis of the statement of these interested witnesses that the respondents had the motive to murder Smt. Deepo.

We now come to the mode and manner of proof of cases of murder by the administration of poison. In Ramgopal v. State of Maharashtra, 1972 S.C. 656, their Lordships of the Supreme 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 question 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 that 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."

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 Smt. Deepo died of poison (organo phosphorous compound) 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 respondents had organo phosphorous compound (poison) in their possession or they had procured it from any available sources. In view of the decision in Ramgopal''s case (supra), failure to prove possession of the poison with the accused by itself would result in failure of the prosecution to prove its case. It emerges from the evidence of Dr. Kehar Singh PW.2 that on the fateful day at about 10 p.m. Kabul Ram and Sohan Lal accused called him to their house for the treatment of Smt. Deepo. If the accused or any of them had administered poison to Smt. Deepo, they would not have called Dr. Kehar Singh for treatment the same night and would have allowed her to die unnoticed. It is in the evidence of Karam Chand PW.9 that on the night of occurrence at about 4 a.m. Kabul Ram accused came to his house and told them that Smt. Deepo was ill and then he (Karam Chand) and his wife Smt. Nandi accompanied the accused to Garhshanker in a car brought by the accused. If the accused had administered organo phosphorous compound to Smt. Deepo Kabul Ram would not have rushed to bring her parents to his house but rather would have cremated the dead body of Smt. Deepo. This conduct of the accused will not lead to the inference of guilt against them particularly in the absence of motive. It is rather queer and strange that if Karam Chand really felt that the respondents had poisoned his daughter to death, he would have raised hue and cry in the locality but he rather stated that suspecting foulplay, he called Gurmel Singh and Charan Singh and others from his village. This conduct of Karam Chand rather suggested that the respondents were implicated in the case simply because of suspicion. At any rate, the evidence clearly shows that the two views are possible one pointing to the guilt of the respondents and the other leading to their innocence. It may be very likely that the respondents may have administered the poison (organo phosphorous compound) to Smt. Deepo but at the same time a fair possibility that she herself committed suicide cannot be safely excluded or eliminated. The prosecution has also 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 or circumstantial evidence and on this ground alone, the prosecution must fail.

The prosecution has failed to prove that the occurrence took place in the manner alleged by it by any reliable; cogent and unimpeachable evidence. It is well settled law that however great the suspicion against the accused person, unless the guilt of the accused is established beyond the possibility of a reasonable doubt on the basis of legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence, he cannot be convicted. In the instant case, the prosecution failed to prove its story against the respondent by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence and the view taken by the Sessions Judge is correct. It is well settled law that unless the conclusions arrived at by the trial Court are Palpably wrong or based on erroneous view of law, the High Court would be reluctant to interfere with its conclusions. The decision of the learned Sessions Judge is correct and we see no reason to differ from the conclusions arrived at by him.

For all these reasons, it is held that there is no force in this appeal and the same is dismissed.