LexSASI THOMAS versus STATE AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c SASI THOMAS v. ST A TE AND ORS. NOVEMBER 24, 2006 [S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Ss. 173(8), 216, 311, 391and4821 Penal Code, 1860; Ss. 201 and 302: Murder of wife by husband-Obtaining of false certificate from doctor certifYing heartfailure as the cause of death and buried the dead body- Brother of deceased filing complaint raising suspicion about the cause of death-Dead body exhumed-Post mortem report reveals that she died of insecticides poisoning-Final report stating that deceased committed D suicide-Challenge to-High Court directing CB-CJD to conduct investigation-Investigation report charging the husband under Section 306 !PC for commission of abetment of suicide and also for committing offences u/s. 207 !PC-Commencement of trial-Filing of an application u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. for further investigation by CBI-Dismissed by the High Court-On appeal, Held: Proper and fair investigation by investigating Officer is back E bone of rule of/aw-Where no direct evidence available, collection of adequate material to prove circumstantial evidence becomes essential-Since doubt as to cause of death raised, statutory duties should have been carried out fairly by the investigating authorities-They submitted a final report stating that the deceased might have committed suicide without any material in support F thereof-Jn the facts and circumstances of the case, trial Court directed that it may exercise its discretionary jurisdiction and may, if case so made out, make alteration of charges and could also consider the question from view point of complainant as regards the circumstances which points out guilt of accused-Complainant permitted to engage a lawyer to assist public prosecutor-Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 32 and 142. G Constitution of India-Articles 32 and 142: Interference with the trial-Power of Supreme Court-Held: Supreme Court could interfere with the trial to reach injustices wherever it is found- But it is not a fit case to inte1fere with. H ~o .. SASITHOMASv. STATE 451 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Ss. 31 I & 390-Alteration of A charges-Powers of trial Court-Discussed Appellant's sister was married with Respondent No. 4, Vice-President in a reputed bank in USA. They obtained naturalized citizenship in USA. In the meantime, the husband developed intimacy with another woman and the wife came back to India with her children on five years visa. Later, her husband B also came back to India. She died on 24.01.1998 in mysterious circumstances. She was stated to have died of heart failure. Respondent No. 5, a doctor gave a certificate to that effect Brother of the deceased, appellant made complaints to various authorities whereupon the body of the deceased was exhumed on 22.04.1998 and a post mortem was i:onducted. It was opined in the post-mortem C report that she died of Organo Phosphorous Insecticide poisoning. The police investigated the matter and submitted a final report. Challenging the report, the appellant tiled a writ petition praying for further investigation in terms of Sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. High Court directed investigation to be carried by CB-CID. After investigation, final report was submitted by the authorities charging the husband for commission D of offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 and respondent No. 5 for commission of offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial has commenced, however, the appellant filed an application before the High Court purported to be under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for further investigation by the CBI. The application was dismissed E by the High Court. Hence the present appeal. The appellant contended that the High Court was not correct in not allowing further investigation without taking into consideration two important developments in the case, viz. a case from heart attack was made out at an initial stage, whereafter a case of abetment of suicide was made out, which F would go to show as to how the investigation has been carried out both by the general police or by the CB-CID; and that there are various circumstances which would clearly point out that the accused-husband committed murder of the deceased-wife. Accused-respondent No. 4 submitted that if sufficient evidences are G brought on record, the Trial Judge could alter the charge in exercise of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.