MANGAT RAI versus STTE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 661 · Decided: 09-07-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

MANGAT RAI 
A 
v. 
ST A TE OF PUNJAB 
JULY 9, 1997 
B 
[M.M. PUNCHHI AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.) 
Criminal trial : 
Circumstantial evidence-Circwnstances establishing guilt of the ac-
cused-Insufficient dow1y being motive of crime-Accused creating wrong C 
evidence of hanging-Defence of suicide set up by the accused husband-Ante-
mortem injuries on the body of the deceased indicating that shi was forcibly 
administered the alcohol mixed with poison-Accused being a doctor had 
every facility and oppo1twzity for administering the poison-Conduct of the 
accused in not immediately inf onning the relatives of the deceased and his D 
absconding from the scene of offence-Though by itself not conclusive, 
becomes clinching circumstance against the accused-Held, in the cir-
cumstances of the case, chain of the circumstances leads to the inevitable 
conclusion that it was the accused and no one else who was responsible for 
the murder of his wife. 
The appellant/accused was a doctor by profession. Deceased, 
married to accused, was constantly ill-treated by the accused and his 
family members for·not bringing sufficient dowry. Deceased gave birth to 
E 
a son before 2 months of the incidence and even at that time the accused 
failed to visit his in-laws. On the day of the incident she was found dead F 
hanging with 'dupatta' around the neck and her legs were tied to the foot 
of the cot. It was established through the chemical examination that the 
deceased was forcibly administered alcohol mixed with poison before her 
death. According to the medical report, two injuries were found to be 
ante-mortem while ligature mark on the neck was post-mortem. The G 
accused did not immediately inform the relatives of the deceased and 
absconded from the place of occurrence. 
The Trial C.ourt on these facts held the appellant guilty under 
Section 302 IPC and the same was upheld by the High Court on appeal by 
the appellant. 
H 
661 
662 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A 
Before this Court the main contentions of the accused was that, (i) 
B 
the case was of circumstantial evidence and the chain of circumstances was 
not complete; (ii) accused, recently blessed with a male child, had no 
occasion to murder the wife; and (iii) there was evidence to show that the 
deceased was in a depressed state of mind and therefore, there was all 
possibility of her hanging herself. 
The main contentions of the State were that, (i) accused had another 
clinic one kilometer away from his residence and it was very easy for him 
to go to his clinic after administering the poisonous alcohol and after 
creating a false evidence as if the deceased had committed suicide; (ii) not 
C intimating the in-laws on the date of the incident itself and subsequently 
his absconding from the place of occurrence are all pointer to his guilty 
mind. 
D 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The medical evidence and the report of the Chemical Ex-
aminer clearly show that deceased lost her life as a result of administration 
of organophosporus compound mixed with alcohol. (668-F] 
2. It is pertinent to note that deceased, a mother of two-and-a half-
E 
months baby, having allegedly taken half a bottle of liquor could not have 
remained in senses to hang herselflater on by self-strangulation.(668-E] 
3. The entire defence version was preposterous and violated all basic 
norms of probabilities and was an affront to common sense.[668-E] 
F 
4. The accused had every facility and opportunity coupled with the 
knowledge that the lethal dose of huge quantity of poison which by itself 
was very pungent required to be diluted by mixing it up with alcohol before 
it could be administered to anyone. [669-E] 
G 
5. The two ante-mortem injuries detected by the doctors on the body 
of the deceased clearly indicated that she had resisted before the intake of 
aforesaid quantity of alcohol mixed with poison. [669-E-F] 
6. 
The aforesaid circur.1stances proved that death was due to 
administration of alcohol and adequate quantity of organophosporus 
H compound. 
MANGAT.RA! v. STATE [S.B. MATMUDAR, J.] 
ti63 
7. The subsequent conduct of accused of not immediately informing A 
his in-laws and relatives of the deceased and his absconding from the scene 
of offence for couple of days till he was ultimately arrested, which conduct 
though by itself might not be conclusive, becomes a clinching circumstance 
clearly point an accusing finger to the appellant and no one else. (670-

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