JAIPAL versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 714 · Decided: 01-10-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
JAIPAL 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
OCTOBER I, 2002 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] 
Evidence Act, 1872-Circums/anlia/ evidence-Murder-Husband 
charged with murder of wife by administering poison-Conviction based on 
C circumstanlial evidence-Appreciation of-Held, there were fatal omissions 
by the police in not protecting !he place of incident as well as samples of 
vomit, thereby depriving valuable and clinching evidence-Merely because of 
foul smell from !he mouth of the deceased, a case of poisoning could not be 
concluded-In the facts and circumslances of the case, ii is not safe to draw 
an inference !hat accused had administered poison lo the deceased wife. 
D 
Molive-Circumstances-Proof of-Discussed 
Accused-appellant and the deceased-wife could not pull on well and 
there arose differences leading to strained relationship between them. Wife 
initiated proceedings for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and 
E husband unsuccessfully filed a suit for dissolution of marriage. Though 
husband preferred an appeal, he compromised with his wife with the 
intervention of elders. Accordingly, wife was required to join him. Since 
she did not do so, husband persuaded his brother-in-law to send her back. 
On the fateful day, sister-in-law (PW3) of accused-husband brought his 
wife and in privacy they had conversation for about half an hour while 
F PW3 was sitting outside. When PW3 heard the voice of the deceased 
complaining of uneasiness, she rushed inside the room. Husband gave a 
tablet to the wife to cure her. Subsequently, wife started vomiting further. 
PW3 took her to a private hospital. Accused-appellant also reached there. 
She was shifted to Government hospital where she died on the same day. 
G 
H 
On the basis of the statement of PW3 recorded in the hospital, FIR 
was lodged and a case was registered against husband of the deceased. 
Trial Court found appellant guilty of offence under Section 302 IPC and 
convicted him for murder by poisoning his wife. On appeal, the judgment 
was confirmed by the High Couri. Hence this appeal. 
714 
... 
JAIPAL v. STATE OF HARYANA 
715 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. Trial Court and the High Court have placed reliance 
on the evidence of PW3, sister-in-law of the deceased, PW4, father of the 
deceased and medical evid~nce along with FSL report for the purpose of 
concluding availability of three incriminating circumstances (i) motive on 
A 
the part of the accused for causing the death of his own wife, (ii) B 
opportunity available to the accused for administering poison to the 
deceased, and (iii) death of the victim having been caused by poisoning. 
These three circumstances taken together, are enough, in the opinion of 
the Trial Court and the High Court to fasten the guilt on the accused. 
[723-A-CI C 
1.2. Medical officer has stated that liver and kidneys, membranes 
of brain and lungs of the deceased were congested; fluid was coming out 
from the larynx and tracnea. These symptoms alone are not enough to 
hold that it could have been a case of poisoning. In spite of the availability 
of such facts the Medical Board was not in a position to opine on the cause D 
of death and preferred to await for the report of Forensic Science Lab. 
examination. (723-D, E( 
1.3. Medical Officer admitted during his cross-examination that 
celphos tablet if kept open in a room it will fill the room with smell. It is 
the characteristic of celphos poison emitting pungent smell which renders E 
it improbable to be administered deceitfully and that is why this poison is 
not generally used in cases of homicidal death. Celphos once administered 
or consumed spreads rapidly in the body and kidney, liver, spleen, heart 
and lungs are affected by the poison. (723-G, HI 
Medical jurisprudence & Toxicology (Twenty-Second Edition), pp. 197-
198; and 'Toxicology-Acute Aluminium Phosphide Poisoning in Northern 
India' a paper written by Dr. Mitra Basu and Prof S.B. Siwach, Current 
Medical journal, Vol.I, No.5, July 1995, referred to. 
F 
1.4. PWIO, a doctor, who was the first to attend the deceased, stated G 
that the symptoms which he noted present in the deceased could be the 
symptoms in the case of food poisoning, virus infection and gastroenteritis. 
Another doctor of Navjeevan Hospital, who had also seen the deceased, 
was of the opinion that it was on account of smell coming out from the 
mouth of the patient that he suspected it to be a case of poisoning. 
However, hi

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