STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH versus JAI CHAND

Citation: [2013] 10 S.C.R. 646 · Decided: 03-07-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. PATNAIK

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
8 
(2013] 10 S.C.R. 646 
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH 
v. 
JAi CHAND 
(Criminal Appeal No. 269 of 2007) 
JULY 3, 2013 
[A.K. PATNAIK AND SUDHANSU JYOTI 
MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 - Murder of wife - Conviction 
C 
by trial court - Acquittal by High Court - Held: Order of High 
Court was unsustainable as the same was passed in disregard 
of the medical evidence and the material witnesses - In view 
of the medical evidence, evidence of the independent witness 
and the conduct of the accused, he is liable to be convicted 
D 
- Order of conviction restored. 
Respondent-accused No.1 was prosecuted for the 
offences punishable ulss. 302 rlw. s. 34 and 498-A IPC, 
alongwith accused Nos.2 and 3. The prosecution case 
was that the respondent brought his wife (deceased) to 
E 
hospital in serious condition, for medical treatment. On 
information by the Medical Officer, police official reached 
the hospital and, on the basis of the statement of PW-1 
(father of the deceased), recorded FIR. Respondent-
F 
acc used No.1 and accused No.3 made disclosure 
statements to the effect that accused No.1 dipped the 
head of the deceased in a bucket full of water and then 
throttled her with his hands with the help of accused 
Nos.2 and 3. Thereafter, all the accused hung the body 
of the deceased. Trial court convicted respondent-
G accused No.1 for the offences charged and acquitted 
accused Nos. 2 and 3. 
In appeal, High Court acquitted 
the respondent-accused. Hence the present appeal by 
the State. 
H 
646 
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. JAi CHAND 
647 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
A 
HELD: 1. The findings by the Division Bench of the 
High Court, rejecting the evidence of PW-10, the doctor 
who conducted post mortem and other material witnesses 
including PW-3 and PW-5 are clearly unsustainable, s 
whereas those given by the trial court, accepting the 
evidence of these witnesses were weighty and sound. 
[Para 28) [663-E-F] 
2. The High Court was clearly in error, in formulating C 
its own opinion based on conjectural premises and 
deciding the case on the basis of that, discarding the 
opinion of the medical experts regarding the nature of the 
injury and cause of death. The High Court proceeded on 
erroneous premise to hold that PW-10, the doctor, who 0 
conducted the post-mortem, might have acquired some 
experience as Medical Officer but he was not a forensic 
expert to give the level of an expert witness examined in 
the Court. It is true that post-mortem report (PW-10/A) is 
not a substantive piece of evidence. But the evidence of 
such doctor cannot be insignificant. In the present case, E 
the post-mortem was conducted by a team of doctors, 
I.e. PW-10 and PW-8. PW-10 conducted the post mortem 
and the forensic expert (PW-8) conducted the viscera test 
In cross-examination, no suggestion was made on behalf 
of the defence that they were not competent or that they F 
had not expertised to perform post mortem of a body. 
[Paras 19,20,21 and 22) [660-D-E, G-H; 661-A-D] 
State of Haryana v. Ram Singh (2002) 2 SCC 426: 2002 
(1) SCR 208 - relied on. 
G 
3. Medical evidence completely falsifies the case of 
accu~ed No. 1 that the ligature mark of 10cm long and 1.5 
cm. wide In horizontal position cannot be caused by 
hanging but could have been caused by strangulation. H 
-
648 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
The conduct of the accused No. 1 was also not natural. 
When he found his wife hanging, he neither made hue 
and cry nor called the villagers nearby. He along with 
others brought down the body of the deceased. He, even 
thereafter, did not report the matter immediately on his 
B own to police. The act of bringing his wife, to the hospital 
cannot absolve the guilt of accused No. 1 of an offence 
committed by him. He was the best person who could 
have explained the reasons for the horizontal ligature 
mark of 10 cm. x 1.5cm. on the neck of the deceased 
c and as to why he did not inform the matter to the villagers 
before bringing down the body of the deceased. [Paras 
26 and 27] [663-B-D] 
4. PW-3 is an independent witness. In his testimony, 
0 
he inter alia deposed that he met accused No. 1 and 'D', 
carrying the deceased on the cot to the road side for 
carrying her to the hospital and it was the accused No. 1 
who told him that as the deceased was ill, hence being 
taken to the hospital. The accused No. 1 has thus, 
E misrepresented the factual position to PW-3 which 
shows guilty intenti

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