DEV KANYA TIWARI versus THE STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [2018] 4 S.C.R. 281 · Decided: 12-03-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
281
DEV KANYA TIWARI
v.
THE STATE OF U.P.
(Criminal Appeal No. 720 of 2016)
MARCH 12, 2018
[N. V. RAMANA AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 r/w. s.34 – Prosecution case that
brother of complainant-PW-5 was killed by his wife and in-laws –
Defence plea that the deceased had committed suicide by consuming
poisonous tablets – During the pendency of trial, accused-wife of
deceased passed away – Trial court convicted accused-appellant
(mother-in-law of deceased) u/s.302/34 – High Court affirmed the
conviction of the accused-appellant – On appeal, held: In instant
case, a complaint was already lodged by the other accused-wife of
the deceased, prior to the complaint lodged by PW-5 – As per that
complaint, deceased informed the Dr. ‘H’  that he had consumed
poisonous tablets and requested him not to save his life – In their
depositions, PW1, PW2 and PW3 also affirmed these facts – If two
views are possible basing on the evidence adduced in the case, one
pointing to the guilt of the accused and other to the innocence of
accused, the view which is favorable to the accused should normally
be adopted – In instant case is entirely based upon circumstantial
evidence – The prosecution miserably failed to establish the chain
of events, which point out at the guilt of the accused – The presence
of blisters all over the body of the deceased and his nails turning
into bluish colour, no mark of fingers on the body of the deceased
as noted in the postmortem report and presence of PW-5
(complainant) at the time of panchanama without any objection,
non-examination of a Dr. ‘H’, the corroborative statements by most
of the prosecution witnesses and that of I.O. to whom Dr. ‘H’ also
disclosed that deceased had consumed poison, all these
circumstances form ample evidence to strengthen the case of the
accused that the deceased committed suicide – In the peculiar
circumstances of the case, not safe to convict the accused u/s.302.
  [2018] 4 S.C.R. 281
 281
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
282
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 4 S.C.R.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. In the case on hand, a complaint was already
lodged by the other accused (died during the pendency of trial) –
wife of deceased, prior to the complaint lodged by PW5. As per
that complaint, on the previous day, after having food the deceased
went out for stroll and came back at about 6 pm with unsteady
walking, wobbling and falling. When he was taken to the Dr. ‘H’
(not examined) the deceased informed the Doctor about
consuming tablets of sulfas as he does not want to live anymore
and requested the Doctor not to make any attempt to save his
life. While they were shifting him to the Allahabad hospital, he
had expired on the way. In their depositions, PW1, PW2 and PW3
also affirmed these facts. PW 8, the Investigating Officer also in
his cross examination admitted the fact that Dr. ‘H’ in his
statement disclosed as the deceased saying to him that he was
fed up with his life and therefore he had taken sulfas tablets. He
(PW8) has specifically revealed that at the time of panchanama
there was no apparent injury on the dead body. [Para 11][287-B-
E]
2. On an analysis, it is clear that PW1, PW2, PW3 have not
supported the prosecution case but specifically supported the
version of the accused. It assumes importance that these
witnesses were not declared hostile. The evidence of I.O.—PW
8 made it clear that Dr. ‘H’ disclosed to him that the deceased
pleaded not to save his life as he was fed up with his life and had
taken the sulfas tablets.  The panchanama was accordingly
prepared, admittedly in the presence of PW5, and there was no
apparent injury on the dead body at the time of panchanama. PW7
who filled the panchanama (Ext. P2) and got the signatures of
panch witnesses, also stated that no noticeable injury was found
on the body of the deceased and it was the collective opinion of
the panch witnesses that the deceased expired due to eating some
poisonous substance and he also concurred with them. [Para
15][289-C-E]
3. In the above backdrop of the case, primarily when there
existed a complaint lodged by the wife of deceased pointing out
that the deceased committed suicide by consuming poison,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
283
generally it is expected that the Doctor will preserve viscera for
chemical analysis. On this point, prosecution has failed in its duty
as no steps have been taken to preserve viscera.  Merely a
statement by Doctor—PW 6, who performed postmortem on the
body of 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.