JOYDEB PATRA AND OTHERS. V/S STATE OF WEST BENGAL, 2013 CrLJ 2729 (SC)

Advertisements

FACTS OF THE CASE 

• The respondent in this case filed a complaint against the appellant and others under Sections 302 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, alleging that the prosecution, Madhavi (the deceased) died because poison was administered to her with the food by the appellants. 
• The facts in brief are that Madhavi Patra (khendi ) got married to Joydeb Patra, the Appellant No. 1 herein. They already had one daughter and again she became pregnant. When she was carrying the pregnancy for nine months. A ceremonial function called “sadh” was organised. After taking food Madhavi became ill and her condition got deteriorated and she died late in the night. According to the prosecution she died because poison was administered to her food by appellants. So, investigation was done and chargesheet was filed against the Appellant No. 1 and his father, brother Appellant No. 2 , sister Appellant No. 2 and mother Appellant No. 4 were tried and convicted under section 302 and 34 of Indian Penal Code in the Trial Court.
• The accused person filed Criminal Appeal No. 397 of 1988 before the High Court of Calcutta but by the impugned judgement the High Court maintained the conviction of the Appellants. Then, they further appeal in the Supreme Court of India in Criminal Appeal No. 203 of 2007 against the judgement dated 28.07.2006 of the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court.
• The High Court finds that conviction of the Appellants is solely based on evidence of PW 12 who conducted the postmortem on the body of the deceased that the death was due to poisoning. The Trial and High Court have taken a view that as deceased died on poisoning, so onus was on the Appellants to prove that deceased did not die on account of homicide but suicide. Since the Appellants failed to prove the burden of proof therefore they had been held guilty of the offence under section 302 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

ISSUE RAISED 

Whether the Trial Court and High Court should solely rely on the evidence of PW 12 which was given in the court more than two years after the deceased died? 

ARGUMENTS

Learned Counsel for the State, Mr. Bijan Ghosh submits before the court that as the death took place in the house of the Appellants, burden was on the Appellants to prove as to how the death of the deceased actually took place. He further submits that the death of deceased took place under very mysterious circumstances and when the medical facilities were nearby them then,  why they didn’t availed the service of medical facilities, and so they have not done this has given the scope for the prosecution to believe that they were guilty of the offence under section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code.

JUDGEMENT

On a reading or examination of the evidence, however the court find that in the Inquest Report (Ext. B) prepared on 03.05.1986 (the date on which the deceased died) relatives of the deceased stated that she had taken poison but no froth was seen on the nostril and mouth of deceased. After reading the postmortem Report (Ext. 2) prepared on 04.05.1986  and the report of Senior Chemical Examiner, Forensic Science Laboratory, Government of West Bengal, the court gave the opinion that there was no evidence to show that the death of the deceased was due to administering of poison.

Since the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that poison was administered to the deceased, the very foundation of the case stood demolished. As per the contention made by the Learned Counsel on behalf of state, the court stated that the burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt is on the prosecution and this burden is discharged only when the accused could prove any fact within his special knowledge under Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act  to establish that he was not guilty. Like in the case of Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab (2001) 4, SCC 375 and similarly in the case of Vikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab(2006) 12 SCC 306.

The court further states that as the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of establishing beyond reasonable doubt, the Trial Court and the High Court could not have held the Appellants guilty just because the Appellants have not been able to explain under what circumstances the deceased died. The Court allowed this appeal and set aside the impugned judgement of the High Court as well as of the Trial Court and directed that the bail bonds of the Appellants will be discharged.

REFERENCES 

https://indiankanoon.org

https://www.manupatrafast.com/

https://www.scconline.com

This Article is written by Lakshmi Kumari of Alliance University (school of law ) Bangalore, Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Admin