GODABARISH MISHRA versus KUNTALA MISHRA AND ANR.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 688 · Decided: 24-10-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.N. RAY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
GODABARISH MISHRA 
v. 
KUNTALA MISHRA AND ANR. 
OCTOBER 24, 1996 
[G.N. RAY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.) · 
Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302:-Murder by strangula-
tion-Deceased under influence of anaesthesitr-No contiivance at the place 
of incident-Apparrel of the deceased intact-Motive against accused 
C proved-Accused alone with the deceased in a room-No possibility of entry 
of third pers01t--H.eld, strangulation homicidal-Absence of cont1ivance ntles 
out any possibiliW of suicide-The circumstantial evidence, absolutely clinch-
ing in establishing the complacity of the accused. 
Ciiminal Tiial-Medical juiispntdence--Opinions in treatises-Held, 
D opinion held. in treatises, are at best, opinions of experts, cannot be held 
absolutely conclusive, particularly when other evidence clearly give a contra 
indication-Indian Evidence Act, 1872-Section 45. 
The respondent/accused was charged for offence u/s 302 IPC, for 
E causing death of her daughter-in-law (deceased) by strangulating her with 
a string of petticoat. 
The respondent had demanded a sum of dowry from the parents of 
the deceased, on failure of payment of which, she was humiliated and also 
physically assaulted in her-in-laws house. The deceased in her letters to 
F her relatives had mentioned about her suffering for non payment of the 
dowry sum. 
The respondent, who was a midwife in a maternity hospital, was 
given quarter adjacent to the hospital, where the respondent was living 
with her son and the deceased. On the date of the occurrence, when her 
G son was absent from the house, she took the deceased to the bospital for 
D & C operation. The deceased was given SO mg Phenagram injection 
(intra muscular) between 8.00 a.m. and 8.30 a.m. The operation was 
performed at around 10.30 p.m. Even though the respondent wanted to 
take the deceased to the quarter immediately after the operation, she was 
H advised not to do so. Even then, she took her to the quarter at 11.30 itself. 
688 
GODABARISH MISHRA v. K MISHRA 
689 
Shortly after taking the deceased, she went to the hospital and took some A 
medicines .. (though there is nothing on the record to indicate, what 
medicine was taken by her). At around 2.30 p.m., the respondent raised 
alarm, hearing which, the lady doctors of the hospital (P.W.6 and P.W.7) 
came. P.W.7 found the deceased lying on a cot with a sheet on her body. 
P.W.6 found that the deceased was wearing sarce, blouse and petticoat B 
without a string. The apparel of the deceased was not disarranged or 
disorganised. The respondent also never stated that after finding her 
daughter-in-law dead she had organised the dress and covered her with a 
sheet. Both the doctors categorically deposed that the back do~r of the 
room was closed from inside (though this was not stated before the police 
statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C.). 
C 
The case of the resporident was that the deceased committed suicide 
by strangulating herself with the string of her petticoat. 
The doctor, in his post mortem report, found five external injuries 
and injuries on the deep muscle of the neck. He deposed that the patient D 
under the influence of Phenagram could not commit suicide by self stran-
gulation. 
The Sessions Judge held the respondent guilty of the offence and 
sentenced her to life imprisonment. 
In appeal, the High Court held that there was no conclusive proof 
that the appellant was alone with the deceased, since P.W.6 & 7 did not 
depose in their statement to the-police, that the back door of the room was 
closed from inside and the investigating officer also did not enquire it from 
them. The possibility of third person cannot be ruled out, and acquitted 
her by giving her benefit of doubt. 
In this appeal against .the acquittal of the respondent, to this court 
E 
F 
it was contended by the respondent that the impugned order of the High 
Court was justified in the facts of the case, and that this was a case of 
suicide because the iajuries on the deep muscle of the neck, according to G 
Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Texicology will be present as a rule in 
the case of suicide by self strangulati~n. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The circumstantial evidence in this case are absolutely H 
690 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 
A clinching in establishing the complicity of the accused in committing the 
murder of the deceased. The view taken by the High Court is clearly against 
the weight of the evidence and cannot be held t

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