LexJOYDEB PATRA & ORS. versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A 8 [2013] 4 S.C.R. 192 JOYDEB PATRA & ORS. v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL (Criminal Appeal No. 203 of 2007) MARCH 06, 2013 [A.K. PATNAIK AND SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302134 - Alleged murder of C woman by poisoning - By her husband and his relatives - Conviction by courts below, solely on the basis of ocular testimony of the doctor who had conducted postmortem - Courts below placed onus on the accused to prove that the deceased did not die on account of homicide - Held: The o Inquest Report, Postmortem Report and Chemical Examiner's Report do not show that death occurred due to poisoning - Prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that poison was administered to the deceased - Courts be/uw wrongly shifted the onus on the accused persons to E prove that they were not guilty - Burden to prove the guilt is on the prosecution and only when this burden is discharged, accused are required to prove any fact within their special knowledge uls.106 of Evidence Act - Evidence Act, 1872 - s.106. F G Sucha Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2001) 4 SCC 375: 2001 (2) SCR 644; Vikramjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2006) 12 sec 306: 2006 (9) Suppl. SCR 375 - relied on. Case Law Reference: 2001 (2) SCR 644 relied on 2006 (9) Suppl. SCR 375 relied on Para 8 Para 8 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal H No. 203 of 2007. 192 JOYDEB PATRA & ORS. v. STATE OF WEST 193 BENGAL From the Judgment & Orders dated 28.07.2006 of the A High Court of Calcutta in Criminal Appeal No. 397 of 1988. Dr. Sumant Bharadwaj, Vivekanand Mishra, Archana Pathak Dave, Ajit Kumar Gupta, K.K. Shukla, Ankita Chaudhary, Manoj Kumar, Mridula Ray Bharadwaj for the 8 Appellants. Bijan Kumar Ghosh, Avijit Bhattacharjee for Respondent. The Order of the Court was delivered by ORDER A.K. PATNAIK, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 28.07.2006 of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 397 of 1988. 2. The facts very briefly are that Madhabi-Patra @ Khendi c D got married to Joydeb Patra, the Appellant No. 1 herein. Through the marriage she got a daughter. She again became pregnant and when she was carrying the pregnancy for nine months, a ceremonial function called 'Sadh' was arranged on E 18th Baisak, 1393 B.S. After taking food, Madhabi fell ill and her condition deteriorated quickly and she died late in the night. According to the prosecution, _Madhabi (the deceased) had died because poison was administered to her with the fgod by the appellants. Accordingly, after investigation, a charge-sheet F was filed and the Appellant No. 1 and his father, brother (appellant No. 2), sister (appellant No. 3) and mother (appellant No. 4) were tried and convicted under Section 302/34, 1.P.C. The accused persons filed Crimfnal Appeal No. 397 of 1988 before the High Court of Calcutta but by the impugned judgment, G the High Court maintained the conviction of the appellants. 3. We are told that the father of the Appellant No. 1 died when the appeal was pending before the High Court and appellant No. 3 died during the pendency of the appeal before · this Court. H 194 SUPREME.COURT REPORTS [2013) 4 S.C.R. A 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State at length and we find that the conviction of the appellants is solely based on the evidence of PW 12 who conducted the postmortem on the body of the deceased that the death was due to poisoning. The Trial Court B and the High Court have taken a view that as the deceased died on account of poisoning, onus was on the appellants to show that the deceased did not die on account of homicide but suicide. We also find on a reading of the lengthy judgment~ of the Trial Court as well as the High Court that the explanation c given by the accused persons before the Courts explaining their suspicious conduct has been rejected by the two Courts as not believable and it has been ultimately held that the appellants were guilty of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC. D 5. On a perusal of the evidence, however, we find that in the Inquest Report (Ext. B) prepared on 03.05.1986 (the date on which the deceased died) it is stated that though the relatives of the deceased stated that she has taken poison, no froth was seen on the nostril and mouth of the deceased. The E postmortem report (Ext. P 2) prepared on 4.5.1
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.