LexMAHABIR MANDAL AND OTHERS versus STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H MAHABIR MANDAL AND OTHERS v. STATE.OF BIHAR March 1, 1972 [J.M. SHELAT, H. R. KHANNA AND G. K. MITTER', JJ.] 639 Penni Code-Murder-Death hy poisoning-Tests. The fi'i:H apoellant c1nd another were conviced under s. 302 read 11ith ss. 34. 1208 and 201 of the Penal aide and two other accused who wcte tried along with them were convicted under ss. 120B and 201. On 1hc materials on record, the trial. Court and the High Coun found that the first appellant was responsible for the death of ·the deceased by poisoning. · · The doctor who performed thr~ post mortem examination on the dead body gave ~videnc.e that the death of the deceased might have been a normal death. He ruled out an asphyxia! death by morphine poisoning, hccause, according to hin1. there was no indication of any of the followinl? characteristics which are to be found in C"Jses of such a death: "(a) Right lung is full of blood and left is empty (b) Lividity of faces ~nd fingers and nails (c) Congestion of the brain (d) Froth or blood froth in the trachea (c) Puncti form ecchymosis in the Jungs with congestion l 1f lungs,.. He v.•as declafcd hostile and anotmr doctor examined by the rrosecution also stated that he c:ould not form any opiniOn about the cause of death except tha~ death had resulted due to respiratory failure. Confirming the conviction of the R'rst appellant for murder arid allow- ing the appeals in part, HELD : (_i) The circumstances of the case and the evidence on record clt!arly point out that the· first appellant was responsible for the death o'i 1 he deC•!ascd and the death was caused by poisoning. When there is no eye witness of the occurrence, the court should not insist upJn evidence r1:garding the exact manner i!l which the death was caused. Poison ca·n he. administered not only orally b.ut also hypoderm'ically or intervacula1rlv '' ith the h<lp of a syringe. In the present case, the conduct of the first ,1µpellan1 in 1•omoving the <l~d body immediately after the death of tho deceased and the same remaining submerged in water for more than 2.4 hours pr.:!vented promt post mortem examination on the dead body. On tbc n1aterial, it can be said that there v.1erc some features Jikc the congestion ,,f both the lungs, the kidney. the liver and the spleen of the victim, \~hich. according to the doctor. Y.'Crc indicative of death by respiratdry fa.ilur-~ <ind the same cbul<l Ix! caused hy poisoning. The fact that the hi.fart of the deceased nt the time of post mortem cx:lminaticn \\'as founJ •o be empty \\IOuld not rule out asphyxia! death as ':l. result of poisoning. Jn many casc!i of -asphyxia! death both the sides of the heart are found \(l be full if examined soon after death but after rigor mortis has set in .. 1hc bean is found contracted and ~mpty. The fact that no poison could he detected in the viscera of the deceased would not n1ilitatc against the conclusion that the death of the deceased was due to poisoning. There .:ire several poisons •Nhich do not leave any characteristic signs as can h~ seen on post mortem cxan1ination, r653A~Dl~ 640 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1972] 3 S.C.R. Taylor's Principles and Pracfice of Mt!dical jun'sprudenc:e, T.,J.'e/frh A Edit;on, p. 199; Moc/i's Medical Jurisprudence ancl .Toxicology Se~·enteeflth Edition pp, 125, 447; Legal Medit:i11e, Pathology and To.<icoloRy, l>.1• Gonzales, referred to. (ii) If circumstantial cvjdencc in the absence of direct proof is so deci- sive that the Court can unhesitatingly hold that the death was as a result of administration of posion (though not detected) and that the posion must II have been administered by the accused person, then conviction can lY.:: rested on it. Therett.Jre there are no cogent grounds to interfere with the findings of the two courts that the death. of the deceased was not natural but homicidal. (ill) No case has been proved against two of the appellants and th<ir .conviction has to be set aside. The rule in section 162 of the Code o[ c Criminal Procedur~ is not applicable to statements falling within the pro- visions of clause ( i) of section 3:! of the Evidence Act or to affect the provisions of section 27 of that Act. But there is nothing in the present cai;e to show that statements made by the two appellants to the police, on whicJi the p.ros~cution ti~licd, resulted in the discovery of any incrimi- nating material as may make them admissible und
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.