LexMANGILAL versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
MANGILAL
v.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR.
OCTOBER 18, 2001
[K.T. TJ{OM~S AND S.N. V ARIA VA, JJ.]
Criminal Trial :
Poison-Administering of-Victim deposed that the accused adminis-
tered poison to her-Chemical examination disclosed presence of insecticide
·poison in the gastric lavage and blood sample of the victi;,,-However, trial
court acquitted the accused Of! the ground that th11,re was no oral, documentary
or circumstantial evidence-Held: The vietim s deposition is direct evidence
which was supported by presence of insecticide poison in the blood sample of
the victim-Therefore, it cannot be said that there was no oral, direct, documen-
tary or circumstantial evidence-Acquittal set aside-Penal Code, 1860, Ss.
307, 323, 324 and 498-A.
Respondent No. 2 was tried for offences under Sections 307, 323, 324
and 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860 • But the trial court acquitted respond·
ent No. 2 on the ground that there was no oral, documentary or circum-
stantial evidence to show that respondent No. 2 had administered poison to
his wife. The Criminal Revision Petition r.Jed by the appellant against the
order of acquittal was dismissed by the High Court. Hence this appeal.
According to the prosecution, the appellant's daughter was married
to respondent No. 2. The appellant had rd~ a First Information lleport
stating that his daughter had been beaten and administered a glass of
pesticide by respondent No. 2. Chemical examination disclosed that an
insectkide poison namely, organo-phosphorous, which was dangerous to
life was found present in the gastric lavage and blood sample of the
appellant's daughter.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. The appellant's daughter deposed in clear terms that her
husband i.e. the 2nd respondent had held her nose and poured poison into
H
her mouth, forcing her to take two or three sips of the poison. She deposed
392
•
..
MANGILAL v. STATE [VARIAVA, J.]
393
that when her father came to see her in the Hospital, she had informed him
that poison had been administered to her by her husband. 'Ole appellant
also deposed that her daughter Informed him that her husband had ad·
ministered poison to her. This is direct evidence, which was available
before the court. This evidence was supported by the fact that on chemical
examination organo-phosphorous b. an insecticide poison was found. in
the gastric lavage and blood sample of the appellant's daughter. The
evidence showed that this substance was dangerous to life. Through the
evidence of these two witnesses the prosecution had also conclusively proved
that the 2nd respondent had subjected the appellant's daughter to cruelty.
In view or this direct evidence it could not have been concluded that there
was no oral, direct; documentary or circumstantial evidence. This finding
cannot be sustained and haS'to be set ~ide. (395-G-H; 396-C-D]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1064
of 2001.
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.7.2000 of the Rajasthan High
Court in S.B. Crl. R.P. No. 290 of 2000.
Ashok Kumar Sharma and Kamal Pundir for the Appellant.
B.D. Sharma for the Respondent No. 2.
Ranji Thomas and Javed Mahmud Rao for the Respondent No. 1.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.N. VARIAVA, J. Leave granted.
Heard parties .
This appeal is· against the judgment dated 5th July, 2000, by which the
High Court has summarily dismissed the Revision Petition filed by the Appel-
lant herein.
Briefly stated the facts are as follows:
The Appellant is the-father of one Munki. The said Munki was married
to the 2nd Respondent. Of the said marriage there is a girl child born to these
. two parties.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
394
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
On 16th September, 1998, the Appellant filed a First Information Report
with the Mahatma Gandhi Police Chauki, Jodhpur, Rajasthan. The complaint
was to the effect that the 2nd Respondent used to beat his wife and har!lSS her
without any reasons. It was complained that even when the 2nd Respondent
had been told not to beat his wife or harass her, he refused to listen to reasons.
It was further complained that on 15th September, 1998, the Appellant was
informed . that Munki was seriously ill and had been admitted to Jodhpur
Hospital. It was stated that when the Appellant went to the Hospital he found
Munki in Emergency Ward.
It was stated that Munki had informed the
Appellant thExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.